Editor,
The recent proposal of the Government of Meghalaya to make learning of Khasi language compulsory to the Garos, and Garo language to the Khasis till class 4 is an interesting subject that is worth deliberating on. On one hand, it is only fitting that we know the language of our fellow brothers and sisters who share the borders and warmth of our beautiful Meghalaya.
On the other hand, as a teacher who imparts knowledge to young learners at the foundational, preparatory and middle stages of learning, I cannot help but analyze the downside that comes with the proposal. Besides the challenges in the classroom transaction, I, for one could not see the practicality of it. This could end up to being irrelevant to the learners at present and long forgotten when it is relevant as he come of age in the future. Since the language will be taught only up to class 4, I wonder how the basic content impart to a child foster the cultural integrity that the proposal aimed to achieve; does knowing the ABC of the language actually help in achieving it? Personally, I believe inclusion of Khasi and Garo folklores, myths or legends in the curriculum (say as prose in English textbook) with emphasis on the cultural identity, practices and diversity of the people, would imbibe the cultural integration among the pupils of the two tribes.
In addition, this proposal seems impractical on the basis that the learning of either language has no utility to the majority of the class 4 and below students. For instance, the majority of the Khasi students living in the Khasi-Jaintia hills, except those in a mixed community, would have to travel extensively just to speak Garo to a Garo. Since language learning has to follow the LSRW fundamentals, a Child would not fully learn because the S (speaking) element will be missing from the picture. So the question arises, “What would he do with the language he learns?” Many would argue that it would enhance his cognitive development; I would agree too and there are research that have proven this point. Now, if multilingual learning ensures cognitive benefits and broadens the child’s mind, should we not teach a language that is more practical and has more use in the day-to-day life of the child and in his future? Will it not be better to introduce Hindi at the preparatory stage where a child would learn the basics and move on to more advanced learning in the middle stage of learning? Hindi is unequivocally a more useful language to learn and it is suitable to introduce it early on while the child is extremely quick to pick up new languages between the ages of 2 to 8 years as studies suggest, also stated in the NEP 2020. Hindi is not a new language to a child. It is something that he has heard on a daily basis during his screen-time or from his elders/parents; thus, when taught in school, he would find it relevant and easier to grasp. He could actually apply what is learnt at school to his environment. But this would not be possible in the case of the former language. Hindi will serve him better in the future when visiting a market, going outside one’s state, meeting other people from another ethnicity etc. While English and Hindi are the official languages in this diverse country of India, Hindi is definitely a link-language for a common man. Therefore, it is befitting that a child is introduced to this widely used language at the early stage of education after English and one’s own mother tongue.
While the intent is admirable, the practicality and utility of the proposal remains questionable.
Damian J Jyrwa
Pyndengrei
