(June 01, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) A symposium held at the Ecumenical Institute, in Colombo brought together Sri Lankans from different religious, language and political backgrounds to review the legislation on language, the Sinhala Only Act of 1956 and its impact on the course of history in this country. The publication "The Politics of Language- A Spectrum of Perspectives in Fifty Years of Sinhala Only in Sri Lanka 1956-2006 is a collection of contributions by some of the participants of this symposium. (Dialogue (NS) Vol. xxxiv 2007, Colombo)
There is already a plethora of publications on this national issue that has dogged resolution for over 50 years. How then is this different from the others? These papers are different in that they have not been written in acrimony or merely as a finger pointing exercise of past mistakes, an accusation directed at many such publications on this vexed subject in the past. The discussions, the editor comments, were confined to a ‘scholarly and serene exchange of view points and stand points", a fact borne out in the papers that reflect a mood of detached and impartial analysis. The focus rests entirely on the shortcomings in the Act and in the non- implementation over the years of the ‘constitutional provisions and related regulations governing language policy and use.’ (Sasanka Perera)
The papers concentrate on a constructive movement forward, which will form a base for future research, and adoption of correctives to issues already referred to in the articles. The objective behind the contributions to this issue of the Dialogue is quite patently to assist in reducing the gap in the confrontational politics of language that appears to have widened rather than narrowed over the years. The present government though engaged in a military confrontation with the Tamil rebels in the North, appear to be aware that finally peace can be achieved only through a negotiated settlement in which language will be a vital component. This timely publication will hopefully fill the information gaps necessary for political action.
The articles cover a wide range of issues related to language, and provides information on the events that form the background to the legislation, the rationale for the legislation for Sinhala and Tamil as official languages (and not for Sinhala Only), an analysis of the positive and negative impact of the language policies taken by successive governments, and some indicators for corrective measures. Having given a comprehensive narrative of the past, this issue concentrates on the need for political commitment to peace and nation building to establish an inclusive community of people, energizing the bureaucracy to implement government decisions in the spirit and letter, highlight the need for reform in education to raise standards in the schools as well as in the universities and to focus on the need for competence in English in a global setting.
There are two issues that require emphasis, before commenting on the substantive matters raised in this publication. One, Susil Sirivardhana in his paper ‘The Absent Fundamental’ points out to the failure of post- colonial governments to recognize the significance of nation- building and national integration in the plural, multi cultural society that is Sri Lanka. This, as he indicates, is central to the problems facing the country. In contrast he sites the Indian National Congress that took the decision in as early as 1916 to work for a ‘secular and pluralist India’ as ‘a way of being comprehensively nationalist’. Sri Lanka adopted the divisive ultra- nationalistic and chauvinistic stand which culminated in the politics of exclusion and not inclusion of all of her people. The tragedy of Sri Lankan history continues to be played out in not giving clearly defined space to the plural polity. His incisive title ‘The Absent Fundamental’ clearly illustrates the ‘division and schism’ that has ‘ruptured’ Sri Lankan society and to date keeps us from building a nation, 60 years after independence.
The second is the clarification Sasanka Perera has made between the title of the symposium, ‘Fifty Years of Language Policy in Sri Lanka and its theme, ‘Sinhala Only Legacy and its Impact on Sri Lankan Society’. The former refers to the Official Language Act No. 33 of 1956 and the latter in its wider connotation has assumed over the years ‘a whole cluster of activities both constitutional and political’ that impacted on implementation on language use, its politics, the subsequent attempts at making Tamil an official language, teaching in schools and universities in the vernacular languages and the course of formal knowledge production in the country.
This distinction is the line of thought that runs through in this volume of the Dialogue and provides the background to the whole turbulent question of the politics of language as juggled by politicians and administrators covering almost a half century. Against this background the main problems facing the country are viewed from different standpoints: inter communal relations; impact on education in both vernacular and English and the consequent lowering of standards, the importance of English in a global future; the development of language rights up to the time of setting up the Languages commission in 1991 to ensure effective implementation of the language policies as stipulated in the constitution; a critiqe of the role of bureaucracy in inhibiting forward movement in the resolution of the language issue and their in built resistance to implement constitutional provisions.
Some lesser known facts significant in the confidence building process have been brought out in the articles. Silan Kadirgamar refers to the profile of the SLFP in its formative stages as a nationalist party with ‘a mildly socialist programme’, having two Tamils as secretaries that illustrated a potential for a direction other than what was finally taken. Had this line of accommodation been developed, no greater sense of inclusiveness was necessary for recognizing a plural polity for national cohesion.
There are two other issues presented by A.Javid Yusuf that are already known but gains strength in repetition to inject better understanding of the lost opportunities to strengthen inter communal relations. One is in relation to the project to teach Sinhalese in the Jaffna schools as far back as the1920’s and later abandoned with the implementation of the Sinhala Only legislation as part of a resistance programme. Had this project been continued, Jaffna and the South would not have ended up as two largely monolingual areas with the line of communication cut off among the two communities.
The other, is in reference to the absence of a ‘political and ideological space’ that could have provided the philosophy and the platform to educate the masses of the dangers of adopting a one language policy. The Left Movement that filled this space for a while, deserted their principled stand when their political fortunes were threatened, leaving a vacuum that was never filled.
Sinhala Only legislation and its impact on the major communities were as diverse as it was complex in as much as it affected the course of history to date. To the Sinhalese it meant the release of the flood gate of opportunities. The people of the hinterland who were deprived of upward mobility because of a lack of English, now had institutions of higher learning open to them, which made it possible to participate in politics, in the professions and in the administrative services. The Sinhala Only legislation also gave added impetus to the revival of Buddhism and Buddhist cultural activities. The dignity of the majority of the Sinhala community thus restored, the latter was no longer a majority that could be ignored.
In the case of the Tamils "it had a devastating effect ….as the language of government and administration and all that it symbolized began to reflect the numerical superiority of the Sinhalese and their consequent influence in the affairs of the state." Sinhala Only legislation removed a minority that had centre stage presence to a minority that receded to the background, their pride wounded, options for moving out of a resource poor situation in the Tamil areas reduced significantly.
The rationale for the difference in the approach to the language issue by the Tamils and Muslims is clearly articulated by A.Javid Yusuf in: "Sinhala Only: Its impact on the Muslim community" Muslims never questioned the legitimacy of the Sri Lankan State as the Tamils did; their identity derived from religion and culture rather than language. To the Tamils, the Tamil language was more than a communication tool; it reflected the bedrock of Tamil culture and civilization, their ethnicity and identity. This in essence is the difference in the responses of the two communities. This was the starting point for protest movements that later developed into a civil war and finally to the establishment of a proto state and armed power, parallel state structures challenging the Sri Lankan State.(Kumar David) Much of this could have been avoided if as A.Javid Yusuf states a "a comprehensive study of its impact on all sections" had been made to avoid injustice to any section of society with the potential to destabilize society. Woefully this approach is what is missing in the language strategies adopted from the outset, the consequences of which impacted on the progress towards a developed nation status, a goal within Sri Lanka’s grasp.
Although the linguistic rights of the minorities have been recognized by law and in the constitutional provisions by successive governments, disquiet and suspicion in inter ethnic relations continues to persist between the two major communities. From the beginning the approach to the issue of language and its implementation did not derive its inspiration from a" "rights-based approach". Application of what has been established by law and in the constitutional provisions depended largely on the "administrative convenience and expediency" of the bureaucracy.(N. Sivakumaran) . Giving strength to this point of view, Silan kadirgamar states that even when there is a political will " (Dew Gunasekera et al)" progress is slow because of the "existence of an inefficient, incompetent, narrow minded and sometimes corrupt bureaucracy, itself a by product of Sinhala Only".
The unsatisfactory response by the bureaucracy to the declaration of 45 AGA divisions as bilingual administrative divisions by the President is referred to show tardy implementation of administrative orders. If this is the response to the President’s dictum, what can be the fate of directions of lesser mortals? In many areas police stations and other institutions do not maintain records or transact business in the language of the people of the area. To date non -Sinhala speaking people are inconvenienced by state correspondence, by the name boards and destination boards in buses and street names all of which are largely written only in Sinhala. Main reason is that the officers are proficient only in Sinhala and are unable to transact business in any other language. (N. Selvakumaran)
Silan Kadirgamar further points out that despite the proliferation of TV and Radio channels that no attempt has been made to translate major policy statements and speeches made in Parliament in Sinhala into Tamil. His contention is that competent interpreters in Parliament capable of simultaneous translations should be used to carry the speeches in Tamil. Efforts made to change this state of affairs will help to assimilate the Tamils into a sense of ‘belonging’ This default he thinks is not because of a shortage in funds and resources but simply ‘a one language mindset."
Many of the problems associated with education in schools and in Universities arise not because of the political decision to teach in the vernacular but because of the failures in educational planning. While translation of important works in the international arena is not always possible owing to limitations of finance, Aloysius Pieris critiques the government for failing in its obligation to undertake the translations of scientific works, the monitoring of correct use of language by special committees and in the preparation of glossaries of technical terms.
There exists a consensus in all the contributions on the need to provide competence in English in order to keep in touch with progress in science, information and knowledge available internationally. Sasanka Perera refers to the absence of serious debate and exchange of knowledge, the unavailability of journals and publications and ‘relative absence of tolerance of plurality of ideas’ that has inhibited progress. In the alternative there is agreement that ‘operational knowledge’ of English must be given to students to access the outside world.
Sasanka Perera also refers to the overdependence on statistical methods and survey techniques adopted as a substitute for long term research processes, a negative trend that has come about owing to inadequacy in English language skills. His reference in relation to knowledge availability in the field of social science and humanities to a surreal experience like a walk in the Jurassic Park of Steven Spielberg’s film presents the eerie picture of the paucity of information in the disciplines he refers to. This graphic comparison to show that a …. ‘ domain of prehistoric proportions ‘ is what remains, untouched by global advances commandeers immediate remedial action..
Ashley Halpe, Izeth Hussain, Kumar David, to mention a few give prominence to the need for English to function in a globalized environment. Izeth Hussain makes an unequivocal statement that a ‘sound grasp of the English language is essential for the Foreign Service personnel as "diplomacy requires… precise and nuanced communication." Kumar David in the subsection of his paper, ‘Language in Development as a Way Out’ suggests that Sri Lanka should collaborate with India and the other global powers in the knowledge and information industry with the ultimate aim of transferring some of the skills to the domestic needs. Intensive English teaching institutions and English and English cum technology training colleges are suggested to be programmed for this purpose. (Kumar David)
In conclusion it may be relevant to cite the reference made by Ashley Halpe to the statistics available in the 1946 census which reveals that only a 3% of the population could be taken to have competence in English in the country. He gives examples to substantiate his argument that there is no significant "decline in contemporary eloquence in English in comparison to the earlier period". This is confined as he says to a minority. The changes introduced to bring greater democratization of education in the country did not happen to the extent anticipated. This Ashley Halpe thinks is because of inadequacy in the quality of English teaching available to the large majority of the people. "It could be therefore argued that there has been no significant change from the colonial picture of the place of English with regard to power and privilege." Perhaps Sanath Nanayakara’s statement that "in the political game involving the Official Language Act there are no overall winners, though there are bad losers" sums up this review of "The Politics of Language".
With the developments as they are unfolding today, Rajan Philip’s comments on the 13th amendment to the 1978 constitution gains significance. In his opinion the arrangement to devolve power to the Tamil speaking areas in the North and East was taken bearing in mind the "ethnic particularities" of the conflict and as a forward move to resolve this problem. The recently concluded Eastern Provincial Elections is therefore another milestone in establishing peace in the country. Perhaps it is possible to cull the wisdom arising from omissions and remissions in the past half century, and at least now, stop political power play in the interest of the Nation. If we fail there may be yet another symposium to discuss ‘The Politics of Language: A spectrum of perspectives in 100 years of Sinhala Only in Sri Lanka 1956-2056."
- Sri Lanka Guardian
Post a Comment