Published online by Cambridge University Press: 29 November 2013
This article focuses on the multilingual educational policies in India and Pakistan in the light of challenges in implementation and everyday communicative practices. The challenges these countries face in the context of the contrasting forces of globalization and nationalism are common to those of the other communities in this region. Both India and Pakistan have adopted versions of a tripartite language formula, in which the dominant national language—Urdu in Pakistan, and Hindi in India—along with a regional language and English are to be taught in primary and secondary schools. Such a policy is aimed at accommodating diverse imperatives, such as providing access to schooling to everyone regardless of their mother tongues, developing national identity through competence in a common language, and tapping into transnational economic resources through English. However, this well-intentioned policy has generated other tensions. There are inadequate resources for teaching all three languages in all regions and social levels. Certain dominant languages enjoy more currency and upset the multilingual balance. Furthermore, as people integrate English into their repertoires in recognition of the better-paid employment opportunities and communication media associated with globalization, language practices are becoming more hybrid. To resolve such tensions between policy and practice, some scholars propose a plurilingual model indigenous to the region. Rather than compartmentalizing languages and demanding equal competencies in each of them, such a model would allow for functional competencies in complementary languages for different purposes and social domains, without neglecting mother-tongue maintenance.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2009). The plurilingual tradition and the English language in South Asia. AILA Review, 22, 5–22.
This article on the plurilingual traditions of South Asia delineates the assimilation of English into its linguistic repertoire. The author distinguished plurilingual practices from other forms of multilingual communication. He argued that plurilingual competence is highly fluid and variable, and relies on interaction strategies. For communication, speakers borrow different codes from the local linguistic repertoire. The plurilingual orientation is presented as traditional to the ecology of this region and demanding a functional rather than hierarchical distribution of languages.
Khubchandani, L. (2008). Language policy and education in the Indian subcontinent. In May, S. & Hornberger, N. (Eds.), Language Policy and Political Issues in Education, Encyclopedia of Language and Education (2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 369–381). New York, NY: Springer.
This chapter is an attempt to provide an overview of the language and education policies and literacy practices in South Asia, particularly India. It focuses on the multilingualism of the region and the pluralistic social and pedagogical practices of the people. Khubchandani critiqued language policies in this region (including the three-language formula) for not addressing the pluralistic practices and tendencies of the people. This limitation has resulted in a stratified education system where the hegemony of English is unchecked. He recommended a pluralistic model for education planning that appreciates the linguistic diversity and language varieties of the region in place of a system that conserves the hegemony of a few dominant languages.
Mansoor, S., Sikandar, A., Hussain, N., & Ahsan, N. (Eds.). (2009). Emerging issues in TEFL: Challenges for South Asia. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press.
This collection of essays presents the complexity of language planning in bi- and multilingual countries. The chapters were written by some of the leading English language teaching (ELT) practitioners in South Asia who promote scaffolding practices in the classrooms where English for some is a second language and for many foreign. The book covers a wide range of topics, including language planning in higher education, classroom practices, and teacher education.
Mohanty, A. K. (2010a). Languages, inequality, and marginalization: Implications of the double divide in Indian multilingualism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 2010, 131–154.
This article focuses on the power differences and inequality engendered by the language policies in India. As a result, many dominant languages are relegated from social and economic domains to home domains and in-group communication. Mohanty argued that children from a very early age become aware of the double divide based on English/vernacular and vernacular/minority languages.
Rahman, T. (2011). From Hindi to Urdu: A social and political history. Karachi, Pakistan: Oxford University Press.
Rahman traced the history of the linguae francae of the subcontinent, Urdu and Hindi. The book helps understand the “Indian language,” a collection of mutually intelligible dialects that for centuries were representative of the cultural synthesis of this region. It traces its linguistic ancestry and social growth from the 13th to the 18th century. It then presents its development into two separate languages, as the political identity of the Indian Muslims (Urdu) and Indian Hindus (Hindi) solidified from the 19th century onwards.