Uccha Shikshanni Bodh Bhasha

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Gujarati Jain text, "Uccha Shikshanni Bodh Bhasha" (The Teaching Language of Higher Education), by Sukhlal Sanghavi, presented in English:

This article by Sukhlal Sanghavi, published in Buddhiprakash in August 1949, addresses a critique by Acharya Dolarray Mankad in the magazine Vanasthali regarding Sanghavi's earlier piece on the "teaching language of higher education." Sanghavi acknowledges Mankad's points and elaborates on his own views, particularly concerning the language of instruction in higher education and its impact on broader society.

Key Points and Sanghavi's Responses to Mankad's Critique:

1. The "Masses" and the Language of Higher Education:

   • Mankad's View: Mankad argues that when discussing higher education (graduate and postgraduate levels), one should not focus on the general public (the "masses") because such education will not be widespread. Therefore, the argument that the language of higher education should be accessible to the general public is flawed.
   • Sanghavi's Response: Sanghavi expresses surprise at Mankad's narrow focus solely on those directly entering universities. He emphasizes that the question is not just about who attends universities, but how knowledge spreads. Knowledge needs to be disseminated in ways accessible to every level of society. He argues that if the language of higher education differs from one's mother tongue (Swabhasha), scholars will tend to think and write in that foreign language. This leads to a lack of accessible vocabulary in their own language when they try to communicate with the general public. Sanghavi uses the historical example of English being the medium of instruction in India, which created a divide not only between those who could and couldn't afford English education but also within families, preventing easy intellectual exchange. Conversely, countries where higher education is in the mother tongue experience no language barriers, allowing even complex ideas to be explained in various ways to people of different understanding levels. This fosters a higher general intellectual standard for the populace. Sanghavi contends that if the goal is to keep the masses down, then advocating for a different "natural teaching language" is appropriate, as people can only grasp what is accessible to them. However, to elevate their intellectual level, learning must be made accessible. He warns that making higher knowledge difficult due to language will create an elite monopoly on knowledge, hindering its widespread availability. He asserts that even complex subjects, when refined in one's mother tongue, become simpler, and the simple language itself gains the power to convey subtle meanings.

2. Sanskrit as a Teaching Language:

   • Mankad's View: Mankad disagrees with Sanghavi's assertion that Sanskrit was not a "teaching language" (Bodh Bhasha) in ancient times or even now. He points to admission letters, question papers, and answers to advanced subjects being written in Sanskrit as evidence of its status as a teaching language.
   • Sanghavi's Response: Sanghavi clarifies his definition of a "teaching language." He states that if someone calls Sanskrit a teaching language simply because examination papers are written in it, he has no objection to that limited definition. However, he does not limit the meaning of a teaching language to just that. For Sanghavi, a teaching language is one through which a subject can be easily understood by the student, and the teacher can convey it easily. Based on his extensive experience of teaching and observing teaching methods in various Sanskrit institutions in Kashi, Mithila, and Bengal, and interacting with scholars from across India, Sanghavi maintains that Sanskrit was neither a teaching language then nor is it now, in this broader sense. He observed that when the student and teacher share a common language (akin to a mother tongue), even complex subjects are taught primarily in that familiar language because students grasp them more easily. Teachers who prioritize student benefit use the language the student understands. He has not encountered any senior Dravidian or Bengali scholars who, when teaching their own students, abandon their mother tongue and rely solely on Sanskrit. While Sanskrit might be used in cases of language barriers, it's not the natural or primary method. He differentiates the prestige of Sanskrit in academic circles from its practical use in teaching. He further explains that scholars writing profound texts in Sanskrit achieved this through a "Sanskrit-centric mental framework" developed from studying texts primarily written in Sanskrit (like the Vedas), which made writing in Sanskrit natural for them.

3. Gandhi's Views on Language and Current Relevance:

   • Mankad's View: Mankad finds Sanghavi's reference to Gandhi's views on language in his article misleading. Mankad argues that when Gandhi and others spoke on this issue, the question wasn't framed as it is today; the primary challenge was the "universal empire of English," and the goal was to overthrow it. He questions what Gandhi's opinion would be now, given the changed circumstances.
   • Sanghavi's Response: Sanghavi strongly refutes this argument. He points out that Gandhi passed away only about 18 months prior, and the situation hasn't changed so drastically as to invalidate his views. On the contrary, with India's independence and the departure of the British, the "affliction of English" has been removed, creating the very conditions Gandhi envisioned. He argues that this situation is not new to those who regularly consulted with Gandhi, and the consistent thought process of figures like Jawaharlal Nehru, Rajendra Babu, Kishorilal Mashruwala, and Rahul Sankrityayan, who shared Gandhi's ideas on language in education, cannot be accidental but is a result of a proper understanding of the situation. Sanghavi emphasizes that Gandhi's vision was not just about negating English but also about construction. Just as he advocated burning foreign cloth and promoting spinning, he had a clear conviction about which language should occupy which level after removing the dominance of foreign languages. This conviction, held since his time in Africa, was that Hindi was the national language, and provincial languages were the natural vehicles of education. Sanghavi cites Gandhi's writings from 1927 onwards, emphasizing his consistent stance that Hindi should supplement, not suppress, provincial languages, fostering mutual contact and enriching both. Therefore, he concludes that using Gandhi's recent passing as a reason to dismiss his views based on a changed situation is unwarranted. Sanghavi concludes by stating that his references to Gandhi were not to blind others but to strengthen his argument by demonstrating a consistent thought process arising from a similar perception of the situation. He believes his clarification is sufficient.