Public university and UGC letter
I was surprised to read the news (March 25) that the incumbent government intends to reintroduce English as the medium of instruction at the university level in Bangladeshi public universities. It is surprising for me because according to New Age report, the move was made by none other than Dr. Kamal Siddiqui, one of the few articulate bureaucrats present in the Bangladesh civil service. For, the idea of reintroducing English at university level not only is an example of anachronistic move, but also is as impractical as it goes against the spirit of the national aspiration and constitutional obligation of the state. Besides, the reasons cited for reintroducing English is simply hilarious.
First, following the logic of what is done cannot be undone; enough is to say that because of emotive reasons, officially, English cannot replace Bengali as medium of instruction regardless of how much the proposal receives support from the academicians. It will only create further political trouble.
Second, it is important to realise the fact that the replacement of a hegemonic language by a local vernacular, in this case, English by Bengali, indicates the social progression of the Bengali speaking community. And the rise of Bengali into pre-eminence in education indicates the social reality of the land: that it resulted from the demand of the silent masses, who otherwise, feel incompetent in a foreign language. Of course, the change had an evolutionary path and the path dependency is irreversible.
Third, in spite of that should the government reintroduces English the proposal does not address what steps to be taken, as to make academicians and students competent in English. One cannot merely subscribe the view that state of education would correct itself, with the reintroduction of English, as students would remain linguistically poor as before, so is the education system.
Fourth, it is hilarious to intend to change a medium of instruction of a national education system, as a section of its output fails to perform the task, since the letter argues, ‘officials of different cadres of the Bangladesh Civil Service fail to develop proficiency in English,’ consequently, these civilians miss ‘large-scale opportunities abroad.’ This is outright a hilarious argument that indicates to what extent our bureaucrats lacks intelligence because of obvious reasons:
A) Not every college graduate becomes civil servants, and since very few of them go abroad; therefore, for the aspirant few, to change the medium of instruction is absurd.
B) The goal of the university education is not to produce handful of bureaucrats, who would become wage earners in abroad.
C) Education and proficiency in English have no correlation per se, as they are disparate factors. One can become proficient in English studying TOEFL and/or SAT examination guidebooks as much as improve his/her conversation skill by other means.
D) Should proficiency in English becomes a dominating factor of a education system, I wonder, how our bureaucrats would perform in non-English speaking countries?
E) The constitution mandates the use of Bengali, as it is the State Language of the Republic. Therefore, such an attempt would violate the fundamental principle of the constitution.
Therefore, common sense dictates what needs to be done: prior their departure, provide those aspirant lucky wage earning bureaucrats extensive course in English, as to make them proficient, not change the medium of instruction. However, there is a caveat: proficiency is one of the very basic requirements, not the only one factor of success. Bureaucrats who intend to succeed abroad must demonstrate extreme competence in respective fields: academic knowledge, leadership quality, and administrative skill.
Shibly Azad
Columbia University
A little self-respect please...
We have heard of a lot of terms in political science about weak states, namely banana republic, soft state, etc. but which classification suits to the present-day Bangladesh? The way things are moving for Bangladesh now, it’s up to the political thinkers to search for a new terminology for us.
No excuses can be acceptable for our failures in punishing lawbreakers and combating prevailing corrupt practices, but does it permit a few envoys of foreign countries to keep on conducting unbridled activities in almost all the matters of our national life? If you talk of receiving aids, which the country, baring a few, does not receive that? But do the ambassadors (who are just mid-level salaried-government servants in their own countries) keep on giving sermons to the whole system in those countries? Have you ever seen foreign envoys making such indiscriminate remarks on local issues even in India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka? No way! And why do they talk of providing assistance only? Are these countries not making money in Bangladesh in one way or other? Why then are these holy sermons?
Well, let us put it straight. Does Bangladesh deserve the treatment or the image it is getting from our own (own really?) or foreign media or protagonists of human rights or democracy? No country is immune to any certain off-track practices in the present-day world. Take the case of the US, the UK, Germany, France, and so on. What is happening in the US and Europe in the name of ‘War on terror’? What about the detainees at Guantanamo Bay? What about restrictions on using religious symbols in France? What about the recent banning of few newspapers in Germany, run by the Muslims? What about the killings in Gujarat and Kashmir? What about indiscriminate Muslim killings in Thailand and the Philippines? Are they not violating human rights? Where is the ‘international’ (or intentional!) community?
The irony is that we have transformed ourselves into a Sermon-happy nation! In the name of receiving foreign assistance, we have opened a Pandora’s Box. It may well be noticed that we have been receiving foreign assistance, through some NGOs, in some unnecessary sectors — something which resultantly, allows unwarranted interference of the so-called donors. Why can’t we restrict foreign assistance in some sectors? What’s the impact of receiving foreign donation for organising useless (albeit, for organisers’ and speakers’ use only!) seminars on various issues? Can’t we do even that with local contribution, if at all necessary?
Rizwan ul Alam
On e-mail
MAIN PAGE | TOP
|
|
