National Education Policy 2020: Revamping the Path to Atmanirbharta
New Education Policy is very significant for arts, crafts, cultures, languages, and literatures not just to lend originality and authenticity to artistic expression but also to uplift the nation and the society to stand on its own solidly and confidently. — Ramniwas Baira
The Government of India announced “National Education Policy 2020” – a new policy document wherein existing education system stand radically transformed. It is a long-awaited reaction to the existing education system in India which needs to be changed for the benefit of the students, teachers, academicians, writers, professionals and to the nation. It proposes to create a new system that is aligned with the aspirational goals of 21st century education including SDG4 while building upon India’s traditions and value systems. It envisages to re-establish the World-class institutions of ancient India. This policy emphasises on local languages as the medium of instruction in primary level education, and foreign languages at the secondary level to enrich students with cultures and knowledge of various countries across the globe according to their interests and aspirations. The policy intends to overcome the social status hierarchy associated with vocational education. This would help to preserve, promote and popularise treasure trove of Indian culture which has been developed over thousands of years, which is very important for the nation`s identity as it would help to restore its role as a Vishwa Guru.
Unfortunately, Indian languages, literatures, cultures, arts and crafts have not received their due attention and care as no concerted actions or measures were taken to preserve or record these rich languages/expressions of culture. For instance, our country has lost over 220 languages in the last 50 years alone and many languages are facing serious difficulties at various fronts. Moreover, UNESCO has declared 197 Indian languages as ‘endangered.’ That is why such policy is needed for rejuvenation of Indian languages, literatures, cultures and arts without neglecting the importance of foreign traditions and knowledge for sustainable and fast progress of the nation in long run. The policy recognises the internal multilingual and multicultural diversity as a microcosm of the global diversity. In other words, it seems that it tries to uphold the idea of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (“The World is One Family”) as expressed in Maha Upanishad (VI, 71-73) and considered as one of the most important values in the Indian society.
In the era of Globalisation, when India has assumed the role of leading G-20. It is often argued that no cultural or literary elements are nativist rather they are global. Neo-liberal economy has dramatically commercialised cultural products of different regions of the globe. It has also helped in circulation of these cultural commodities across the world but this is a partial or limited observation as all the parts of the globe are not equally represented in this era of globalisation. Generally, people, cultures, languages and the communities survive with their past indigenous and traditional cultural systems in various forms. Presently, even if such practices do not exist materially, they exist in collective memory of the community.
It should be kept in mind here that the concept of globalisation and the concept of nativism (the desivad) are not exactly opposite to each other. One of these ideas does not make sure the absence of the other. Therefore, it is very important here to understand the core notion of the desivad in culture, language or literature and arts. One need to pay attention to the historical and contemporary development of culture, languages, literature and arts. There are various forces which makes people sceptical about locating the nativity in a certain cultural system. These forces include globalisation along with Colonialism, Imperialism, modernism etc. which have already changed course of lives, thoughts and practices of various communities across the globe. These forces have challenged the nativist practices of the communities in different forms in different historical periods.
Imperialism in its neo-colonial form is trying to put blinkers on Indian eyes to view the path ahead only as determined by the master where seems to control the economy, politics and culture of India whereas the ceaseless struggle of the Indian people to liberate their economy, politics, and cultures from that “Euro-American-based” stronghold to usher a new era of true Indian self-regulation and self-determination. It is an ever-continuing struggle to seize back our creative, innovative and imaginative cultural heritage.
In India, the contention started approximately two hundred years ago when in 1835, British historian and politician Thomas Babington Macaulay presented his “Minute on Indian Education” that sought to establish the need to impart English education to Indian ‘natives’. It was a scathing remark on the inferiority (as he saw it) of native culture and learning. He argued that Western learning was superior and currently could only be taught through the medium of English. The main aim of the minute was to produce – by English-language higher education – “a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect” who could in their turn develop tools to transit Western learning in vernacular languages of India. It clearly suggests that Colonialism and colonial culture used to portray Indian culture as a “Low Value-Culture.”
However, pioneer theorist of the Desivad or Nativism, Balchandra Nemade rejects this kind of perception towards our indigenous culture. He introduced the theory Desivad in India during 1980s which was derived from the idea of Americanism. According to him, our native culture “had been certainly a high-value culture till the seventeenth century which created Dara Shikoh, the Tej and Tukaram, to mention only a few” (9). He further argues that “the task of preparing again a viable Indian Critical Tradition may not be possible unless all the systems of literature- productive, distributive and consumptive – are originally desi or nativistic” (Preface/Nativism). So, nativism is an idea or practice/policy to re-conceptualise, revisit and re-discover one’s native identity, culture etc. It is a practice to resist against the colonial and imperial forces and the cultural hegemony of globalization.
In Indian context, the major requirement of nativism is to serve its languages and cultures. It also offers an alternate way of reading India’s past, culture, literature and languages. Language plays a vital role in the way one perceives or reads one‘s indigenous culture and heritage. As Ngugi wa Thiong‘o argues that “the choice of language and to use to which language is put is central to people‘s definition of themselves in relation to their natural and social environment, indeed in relation to the entire universe” (4 Ngugi). This may be the reason that language has always been at the heart of the two contending social forces (self and other/local and global/indigenous and foreign) in our nation.
One needs to understand here that too much of nativism may also be detrimental for the progress of a society in the long run. As, Indranath Choudhury cautions that “it should be remembered that Nativism is not an obsession with roots. Instead, it is a concept which has come to challenge the very idea of Eurocentric modernism and internationalism – the tendency to compare every literary text / trend with some Euro-American product” (as said by Indra Nath Choudhuri in his welcome speech at a seminar on Desivad in Indian Literature organized by Sahitya Academy in collaboration with the Centre for Creative Writing and Publication, IIT, Kanpur in 1995.). (Nativism: Essays in Criticism, 2). He suggests that nativism is a dialectic relationship between self and other where self is reclaiming one’s desi identity and other is different from one’s desi identity.
Therefore, desivad is a peaceful coexistence between desi and other. There is a power relation in the context of desivad also. This power relation in the context of desivad is not of the opposites but of the different. The tussle between the cultural opposites needs to done away with in order to celebrate the beauty of differences. Nemade expresses that “Kalidasa is the Shakespeare of India, Valmiki is the Homer of the East, and ‘foreign signifiers became a primary base of our linguistic signs in literary criticism’. But who was the Tukaram of West, or what was the Ajanta or the Mahabharata of the West?” (Nemade).
It brings us back to the point that it is very important for a society to be aware of its own tradition, culture, literature and languages to make sustainable progress. An author must have a sound understanding of his/her own tradition in order to produce good literature. Unfortunately, in India, there are very few writers who have produced significant indigenous literature in the recent past because most of the writers have been happy imitating Western ideas and norms of expression which shows their lack of understanding of their own tradition.
The writers and intellectuals of our country who should have been mapping paths out of that linguistic encirclement of their sub-continent also came to be defined and to define themselves in terms of the language of the imperialist imposition. Even at their most radical and pro-Indian positions in their sentiments and articulation of problems, they are of the opinion that the renaissance of Indian cultures lay in the languages of Europe. In 2020, the Government of India, has attempted to revamp the path to revive and to rejuvenate the multilingual and multicultural Indian spirit through this policy which aims to do so without any grudges towards global languages.
Nemade accepts that nativism sometimes tends to join hands with traditionalist regressive forces but it is equally true that nativism is the only potent weapon of the suppressed to challenge the foreign forces that aim to undermine the able native systems. In Indian context, Gandhi’s spiritualism or Ambedkar’s revival of Buddhism could be cited as brilliant nativistic examples which served the cause of broad Indian civilization and which are no less important than the so-called progressive internationalism.
Finally, Nemade asserts that nativism aims to continue the eternal struggle between tradition and modernity which is the sign of liveliness of any society. Modern Indian society is yet to find the balance between tradition and modernity, religion and science, worldly and temporal, nationalism and internationalism which is must for its own health and wellbeing. He concludes his arguments on an optimistic and confident note “I think we Indians, being the members of the oldest living civilization of the world, are the most eligible to establish the native principle as an essential and fundamental requisite of human existence.” (Nemade, 2009: 37). NEP 2020 is a big step to materialise our potential to establish “the native principle.”
NEP is very significant for arts, crafts, cultures, languages, and literatures not just to lend originality and authenticity to artistic expression but also to uplift the nation and the society to stand on its own solidly and confidently. It very difficult for an individual to expresses his/her thoughts, creativity, talent, feelings, and emotions in a language that is not one‘s own. Language, of course, is inextricably linked to art and culture. In order to preserve the art and culture, one must preserve and promote a culture’s languages to overcome the inferiority complex associated with the indigenous culture and languages. Through NEP, we have got a chance for the revival of rich Indian languages and cultures in order to create a holistic development and to infuse a positive cultural identity, self-esteem, belongingness to one’s own culture and an appreciation for other cultures.
Ramniwas Baira: Asst. Professor, Department of English, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee College for Women, University of Delhi.
Share This
