Uccha Shikshanni Bodh Bhashano Prashna - Book Summary

Here's a comprehensive summary of the Jain text "Uccha Shikshanni Bodh Bhashano Prashna" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, focusing on the debate around the medium of instruction in higher education:

The article discusses the significant disagreements arising from the question of the "medium of instruction" (bodh bhasha) in the context of educational reform. The author emphasizes the crucial need for a calm and rational consideration of this issue, as any mistake in deciding the medium of instruction for the public can lead to widespread disadvantage for the entire population.

Core Principles and Current Consensus:

Pure Education Perspective: From the viewpoint of pure education, there is no debate that the language of a people should be its medium of instruction.
Primary and Secondary Education: There is also a consensus that in primary and secondary education, the medium of instruction should be the mother tongue (swabhasha). The article notes that the Gujarat University's activities and a resolution passed at the Gujarati Sahitya Parishad conference both support the mother tongue as the medium for these levels.

The Debate Focuses on Higher Education:

The article clarifies that the central point of contention is higher education. The author argues that if higher education in Gujarat is to benefit everyone, from the top to the bottom, then imparting it through the Gujarati language would naturally lead to widespread success and understanding.

Critique of English as a Medium:

The author points out that educationists advocating for the public's interest have historically opposed English as a medium of instruction. The primary reason for this opposition was that English education did not reach all strata of society. It is now widely accepted that despite the necessity of knowing English for various reasons, it cannot serve as the primary medium of instruction. The same applies to any language other than Gujarati in Gujarat, or any language other than the regional language in other states.

The Role of the National Language:

The article then addresses the advocacy for a "national language" (Rashtrabhasha) as the medium of instruction for higher education, for reasons other than universal education.

Necessity for Inter-State Communication: The need for a national language for inter-state communication, national unity, and integrity is acknowledged.
Facilitating Central Administration and Cultural Exchange: It is also recognized that learning the national language is essential for individuals to easily interact with the central administration and participate in cultural exchanges.

The Core Question: National Language as the Medium of Higher Education?

The crux of the debate lies in whether to accept the national language as the medium of instruction for higher education. The author then outlines the potential negative consequences of adopting the national language as the sole medium:

Neglecting Equal Benefit of Education: It would mean disregarding the equal benefit of education across all levels of society.
Stifling Gujarati Language Development: It would imply that Gujarati language's potential for development is limited, or that such development is not a priority, potentially confining its growth to literary subjects like poetry and drama.
Limiting Literary Development: Literary development would be restricted to what is naturally possible without widespread knowledge in other subjects, as true literary mastery requires broader understanding.

Arguments for Gujarati and the Capabilities of Regional Languages:

Gujarati's Potential: The article asserts that Gujarati has the inherent strength and capacity to encompass the entire realm of education. History and experience demonstrate this when it has been properly nurtured. The contributions of Gujarat Vidyapith and Mahatma Gandhi are cited as examples of Gujarati's exceptional potential.
Equivalence to Other Languages: Gujarati, rooted in Sanskrit and Prakrit, is considered equal to other successor languages. There is no reason to believe it is less capable of developing subjects that are not yet fully explored in Gujarati than any other provincial or national language.
Hindering Potential: Not accepting Gujarati as the medium in Gujarat would mean stifling its potential and limiting the people's intellectual capacity.

Views of Prominent Figures:

The article then presents the views of several prominent national figures on this matter:

Mahatma Gandhi: While advocating for the national language (Hindi-Hindustani) for national purposes, Gandhi strongly insisted on Gujarati as the medium of instruction in Gujarat. He allowed exceptions for professors from other regions, but encouraged them to learn Gujarati. His emphasis was on learning the language of the region one resides in. He famously stated that speaking Hindi to Gujaratis in Gujarat would be inappropriate.
Acharya Kripalani and Diwakarji: Gandhi urged them to learn Gujarati, emphasizing the importance of regional language proficiency even while promoting the national language.
Kishorilal Mashruwala: While believing language and script are mere vehicles, he strongly advocated for education through the mother tongue unless there's a compelling reason to go abroad. He stressed that education should be conducted in a single language within a province and that the learner's mother tongue is the best medium for effective education. He also stated that the speaker or lecturer should learn the audience's language.
Babu Rajendra Prasad: He argued that for effective administration, all officials, from the Supreme Court to lower courts, legislators, etc., should know the common language of India (Hindi-Hindustani). He advocated for its deep and rapid study to ensure fair access to justice and employment. However, he did not advocate for the national language as the medium of instruction in universities. He believed that students aspiring to serve the nation or engage with common interests across the country would naturally study the national language. He proposed making it a compulsory subject from the fourth grade onwards.
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru: Speaking at the Akhil Hind Lekhak Sammelan, he argued that the development of regional languages has not led to anti-unity sentiments. He believed that regional pride in language and culture is natural and does not clash with national unity, as India's ethos embraces "unity in diversity." He contended that the development of one language can aid the development of others, and that conflicts arise from political maneuvering, not from languages themselves. He emphasized that the core issue is shared vision and principles, and that differences in these areas will manifest in language.
Pandit Rahul Sankrityayan: Having extensive experience with educational institutions abroad, he questioned why Indian provinces cannot follow the example of countries like Albania and Tibet in using their own languages for all levels of education. He also noted that Hindi could only serve as a national language when it fully assimilates the richness of all provincial languages and possesses a vast vocabulary.
Shri Aurobindo: In his message to a university convocation, he questioned the idea of imposing uniformity. He argued that while a single national language for administration, language, literature, art, and education might seem like a path to unity, it is impractical and its benefit is questionable. He highlighted that the diversity of ancient India, while having its flaws, fostered vibrant cultural centers and enriched national unity with diverse colors. He believed that modern science and improved means of communication have bridged distances, and that federalism and a strong sense of self-reliance have solidified national unity. He warned against suppressing natural regional aspirations, stating that it's more dangerous than allowing their natural expression. He concluded that "unity in diversity" is inherent to India's nature and that the emergence of unity from diversity is its fundamental evolutionary path.

Addressing the "Clash" Argument:

The article refutes the claim that using Gujarati as the medium of instruction would disrupt national unity or create conflict. It argues that if Gujarat is to remain a distinct province within India, its linguistic distinctiveness will persist, just like other provinces. To suggest that this linguistic distinctiveness would hinder national integrity while other distinct features do not, is seen as inconsistent.

The Inevitability of Conflict:

The author argues that if the aim is to avoid conflict, then the national language should be the sole medium from primary to higher education, across all branches of learning. Otherwise, the core issue of conflict will remain. The author also contends that the idea of making the national language the medium in higher education while retaining regional languages in lower levels will inherently preserve the source of conflict.

The Root Cause of Conflict: Psychological Factors:

The article concludes by emphasizing that the real cause of conflict lies in psychological factors, particularly economic and power-related ambitions, rather than language differences. It draws a parallel to English, suggesting that merely replacing it with the national language will not eliminate conflicts, as these arise from distorted minds driven by greed and power. The author points to Gandhi's example, highlighting that his pure mind and balanced approach allowed him to promote both Gujarati and the national language without conflict. The key to avoiding conflict, therefore, lies in maintaining mental equilibrium, which is itself a crucial aspect of education. The article advocates for the principle of "unity in diversity," where regional strengths are nurtured and harmonized with the national life, and that Gujarati language can achieve this dialogue with the national language without compromising its own special character.