Chennai: At a time when states including Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Maharashtra and West Bengal are up against the three-language policy, Prime Minister Narendra Modi...
Chennai: Only two languages, Tamil and English—that's the upshot of the Tamil Nadu State Education policy released on Friday. It reaffirms the state’s commitment...
Tamil Nadu sought release of more than Rs 2,000 cr under Samagira Sikha Scheme. It alleges funds have been withheld following state govt's decision to not implement New Education Policy.
If implemented, institutions’ commitment to NEP will become main factor in securing benefits along with NAAC accreditation. In the past, states like Tamil Nadu have opposed NEP.
PARAKH, a body under NCERT notified last year following NEP recommendations, also working on sample question bank to help bring equivalence among boards, says CEO Indrani Bhaduri.
SEBI probe concluded that purported loans and fund transfers were paid back in full and did not amount to deceptive market practices or unreported related party transactions.
Many really smart people now share the position that playing cricket with Pakistan is politically, strategically and morally wrong. It is just a poor appreciation of competitive sport.
Let us be a bit braver here.
Bharatiya languages coexisted for centuries, never saw feuds like this.
Then, two things happened:
(1) Urdu was born as a direct consequence of Rasulullah (SAWS)’s OG two-nation theory – believers being supposed to differentiate themselves from non-believers in every aspect (including language). You can see this in Urdu, e.g. Urdu people will set themselves apart form Hindi-speakers by even things as petty as minor pronunciation differences (e.g. prārthanā –> prāthnā , parvat –> parbat, etc.), and of course the entire Perso-Arabicisation that is obvious at a first glance.
Significance: This is the beginning of the idea of language as a marker of communal identity, separate from and antithetical to that in the immediate environment (I am not pro-homogenisation, so I reject the idea of “one” mainstream – but the difference here is intended to set oneself apart, or really stick out [like a sore thumb sometimes] from one’s immediate surroundings).
(2) The advent of English which came with a clear hierarchy, where all languages of the uncivilised “orient” were inferior, rustic, backward, and not worth studying or using in education, science, official purposes etc.
Significance: Combined with the rise of British power, the capture of education by missionary and colonialist forces over a couple of centuries gradually led to the internalisation of the hierarchy of world languages, where English is at the top, and other western languages a close second, with Bharatiya languages being good-for-nothing at best or often even a mark of shame.
Thus, we internalised two different notions from these historical experiences: (1) Urdu imperialism taught us that language is a marker of identity (it is, no doubt) – BUT “identity” is perverted into a separatist/adversarial sense. Then, (2) taught us that there is a hierarchy of languages, superior and inferior, a view we did not hold before (as an example, consider the rich exchange of vocabulary between Thamizh and Sanskrit, and how both nourished and enriched the other Bharatiya languages in their spheres of influence).
Let us be a bit braver here.
Bharatiya languages coexisted for centuries, never saw feuds like this.
Then, two things happened:
(1) Urdu was born as a direct consequence of Rasulullah (SAWS)’s OG two-nation theory – believers being supposed to differentiate themselves from non-believers in every aspect (including language). You can see this in Urdu, e.g. Urdu people will set themselves apart form Hindi-speakers by even things as petty as minor pronunciation differences (e.g. prārthanā –> prāthnā , parvat –> parbat, etc.), and of course the entire Perso-Arabicisation that is obvious at a first glance.
Significance: This is the beginning of the idea of language as a marker of communal identity, separate from and antithetical to that in the immediate environment (I am not pro-homogenisation, so I reject the idea of “one” mainstream – but the difference here is intended to set oneself apart, or really stick out [like a sore thumb sometimes] from one’s immediate surroundings).
(2) The advent of English which came with a clear hierarchy, where all languages of the uncivilised “orient” were inferior, rustic, backward, and not worth studying or using in education, science, official purposes etc.
Significance: Combined with the rise of British power, the capture of education by missionary and colonialist forces over a couple of centuries gradually led to the internalisation of the hierarchy of world languages, where English is at the top, and other western languages a close second, with Bharatiya languages being good-for-nothing at best or often even a mark of shame.
Thus, we internalised two different notions from these historical experiences: (1) Urdu imperialism taught us that language is a marker of identity (it is, no doubt) – BUT “identity” is perverted into a separatist/adversarial sense. Then, (2) taught us that there is a hierarchy of languages, superior and inferior, a view we did not hold before (as an example, consider the rich exchange of vocabulary between Thamizh and Sanskrit, and how both nourished and enriched the other Bharatiya languages in their spheres of influence).