This should so be a non-issue. Sadly, it's anything but.
Everyone's already stated most of what I wanted to write. I have some minor additional points to add.
It's a shame post 2's Burkha Dutt wasn't born at the right time. Methinks had she been born in the Roman era she'd have insisted that Latin would have been our saviour. Or, if only she'd been in the times of the Persian Empire, she'd have promised Bharat's salvation lay in Avestan or the later dialects. Thankfully, Burkha might just survive until tomorrow when she will be swearing by Chinese.
In any case, it seems some Indians are more willing to be clowns for the west - to be ridiculed for our inept English (and, except for a very small handful of Indian-born speakers of English, most Indians who learnt English are like me: we'll never be as good in it as the English speakers in the UK, Australia and the like) - than to be adept speakers of (several) of our languages.
I know some Chinese people who have only started learning English recently. They speak slowly and have trouble with the grammar and don't know enough of the vocabulary to form sentences comfortably. (This is of course very natural and logical, since they are in the process of learning and are doing so late in their lives, too.) The impression many ignorants get is that they are stupid or unable to speak because of how they speak English - not realising how excellent these people are in language because they excel in their own native Chinese.
Inglish is a useful word. I'm going to overuse it here. The reason I wrote the above paragraph is to indicate another reason why it is beyond foolish for us to relinquish Indian languages: with Inglish we'll always be in second place. But we will be numero uno forever in our own. There is no respect for people who are ill-conversant in any language and at best speak Inglish, which, say what you will, is merely broken English. Do we really want to be like the British colonies where they speak pidgins (at least they have more authentic claims to originality than Inglish) that merely stress how much their identity was formed by colonisation (and corresponding slavery). They had no choice. We do.
And like fools, some of us actually <i>want</i> to exchange our local languages for English - the very language of our recent oppressors too! For goodness sake, why not rewind the clock to pre-Independence time and prevent independence altogether - some 'Indians' obviously still want to be part of the British Empire and would prefer to be crushed by its heel than grow freely in our soil.
And do we really forever wish to be known as The Incompetents or The Colonised?
Indian languages are a trove of treasures. There is a great beauty, poetry, sensitivity, clarity to each one. We can't all learn all the Indian languages, but we can certainly learn our own Mother Tongue and Samskritam besides, at the very least.
If these languages of ours had belonged to the SE Asians or other people instead, our psecularists - perhaps even the apparent hopeless case Burkha - would, if they could be bothered, be insisting that the SE Asians not give up their 'beautiful languages and identity'. But when it's India, everything Dharmic is thrown to the wind and may as well perish in their opinion.
Not long ago, it was only christo converts - who were generally inept in local languages anyway, their gods being christos of foreign countries - who made argument for the 'Only-English please' case. Now the psecularists have joined the chorus. How surprising.
Post 3 (Vishwas):
I agree with most of what is written, except a small section of one paragraph:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Many non-Hindi states (except TN) follow the three-language formula (Hindi, Local, English) in state schools. This puts too much pressure on the child. We are better off removing Hindi as the compulsory language, and allow the child and parents breathing room to learn the local language in full.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Children should indeed learn their local language in full <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> but three languages is not any difficulty for the vast universe of linguistic (and other learning) capability that is a child's brain. It has long been known that childhood is when children can pick up languages and become proficient in them (one can even <i>think</i> naturally in them when learnt at a young age, or so it is argued). After about age 15, all languages one starts learning will be imperfect, unless one has a photographic memory or whatever.
Do not forgo the opportunity to start bringing your children up with all the languages you want them to know. They will complain a bit now and thank you later. Trust me.
However, I agree that Hindi should not be the second Indian language that Dharmic Indian children should learn, since Hindi is the local language of one part of India. It has no more particular significance to non-Hindi speaking India than, say, Bengali or Kashmiri would.
The second Indian language should be Samskritam (Jains should have the choice between Samskritam and the Prakritam their works are written in). The third can be English or whatever else might be en vogue then.
<b>ADDED:</b>
For some Indians, English might have to even be the 4th language, like the Tulu-speaking population of Karnataka: in their case it would be Mother Tongue (Tulu), local language (Kannadam), Samskritam and then English. But they have no problems in this regard, most of them have already been learning two or three of these four languages, and others even all four.
Everyone's already stated most of what I wanted to write. I have some minor additional points to add.
It's a shame post 2's Burkha Dutt wasn't born at the right time. Methinks had she been born in the Roman era she'd have insisted that Latin would have been our saviour. Or, if only she'd been in the times of the Persian Empire, she'd have promised Bharat's salvation lay in Avestan or the later dialects. Thankfully, Burkha might just survive until tomorrow when she will be swearing by Chinese.
In any case, it seems some Indians are more willing to be clowns for the west - to be ridiculed for our inept English (and, except for a very small handful of Indian-born speakers of English, most Indians who learnt English are like me: we'll never be as good in it as the English speakers in the UK, Australia and the like) - than to be adept speakers of (several) of our languages.
I know some Chinese people who have only started learning English recently. They speak slowly and have trouble with the grammar and don't know enough of the vocabulary to form sentences comfortably. (This is of course very natural and logical, since they are in the process of learning and are doing so late in their lives, too.) The impression many ignorants get is that they are stupid or unable to speak because of how they speak English - not realising how excellent these people are in language because they excel in their own native Chinese.
Inglish is a useful word. I'm going to overuse it here. The reason I wrote the above paragraph is to indicate another reason why it is beyond foolish for us to relinquish Indian languages: with Inglish we'll always be in second place. But we will be numero uno forever in our own. There is no respect for people who are ill-conversant in any language and at best speak Inglish, which, say what you will, is merely broken English. Do we really want to be like the British colonies where they speak pidgins (at least they have more authentic claims to originality than Inglish) that merely stress how much their identity was formed by colonisation (and corresponding slavery). They had no choice. We do.
And like fools, some of us actually <i>want</i> to exchange our local languages for English - the very language of our recent oppressors too! For goodness sake, why not rewind the clock to pre-Independence time and prevent independence altogether - some 'Indians' obviously still want to be part of the British Empire and would prefer to be crushed by its heel than grow freely in our soil.
And do we really forever wish to be known as The Incompetents or The Colonised?
Indian languages are a trove of treasures. There is a great beauty, poetry, sensitivity, clarity to each one. We can't all learn all the Indian languages, but we can certainly learn our own Mother Tongue and Samskritam besides, at the very least.
If these languages of ours had belonged to the SE Asians or other people instead, our psecularists - perhaps even the apparent hopeless case Burkha - would, if they could be bothered, be insisting that the SE Asians not give up their 'beautiful languages and identity'. But when it's India, everything Dharmic is thrown to the wind and may as well perish in their opinion.
Not long ago, it was only christo converts - who were generally inept in local languages anyway, their gods being christos of foreign countries - who made argument for the 'Only-English please' case. Now the psecularists have joined the chorus. How surprising.
Post 3 (Vishwas):
I agree with most of what is written, except a small section of one paragraph:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1. Many non-Hindi states (except TN) follow the three-language formula (Hindi, Local, English) in state schools. This puts too much pressure on the child. We are better off removing Hindi as the compulsory language, and allow the child and parents breathing room to learn the local language in full.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd--> Children should indeed learn their local language in full <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> but three languages is not any difficulty for the vast universe of linguistic (and other learning) capability that is a child's brain. It has long been known that childhood is when children can pick up languages and become proficient in them (one can even <i>think</i> naturally in them when learnt at a young age, or so it is argued). After about age 15, all languages one starts learning will be imperfect, unless one has a photographic memory or whatever.Do not forgo the opportunity to start bringing your children up with all the languages you want them to know. They will complain a bit now and thank you later. Trust me.
However, I agree that Hindi should not be the second Indian language that Dharmic Indian children should learn, since Hindi is the local language of one part of India. It has no more particular significance to non-Hindi speaking India than, say, Bengali or Kashmiri would.
The second Indian language should be Samskritam (Jains should have the choice between Samskritam and the Prakritam their works are written in). The third can be English or whatever else might be en vogue then.
<b>ADDED:</b>
For some Indians, English might have to even be the 4th language, like the Tulu-speaking population of Karnataka: in their case it would be Mother Tongue (Tulu), local language (Kannadam), Samskritam and then English. But they have no problems in this regard, most of them have already been learning two or three of these four languages, and others even all four.