On July 17, 13 The Hindu
published a news report saying that a professor of a certain branch of
engineering who works in IIT Madras had devised a script, called “Bharati”, which
all languages in the country can use and in fact, should use, and if that
happened, it would remove barriers to effective communication in India, which
are due to its multilingualism – 22 official languages, 58 different languages
taught at school, 87 languages in which newspapers are published, as the report
notes. These, we might note, are “privileged” languages. There are many more
languages in the country, quite a few of which are endangered, and many of
which have no script. For most effective communication, one language in the
country would be the best solution, in the view of the author of Bharati, but
he realizes that it is an impossible proposition, so the next best thing is one
common script for all the Indian languages.
In this context we may note that
it is possible today, in the case of many, I do not know if all, major
languages, to read material written in one such language in the script of
another; one can read a text written in Telugu, for instance, in Devnagari
script, for a Hindi speaker to be able to read the text. The transliteration
technology is already available. One could also read the material written in
any of our major languages in Roman script. There are extremely useful language
technologies. But these can hardly contribute to solving significantly the
problem of language barrier in communication in our richly multilingual
country. Does a Kashmiri speaker understand material in Odia or Marathi if the
same are written in the script of his language or in some common script? Does
an Odia understand the tenth century Odia when it is made available to him in
the script used today? Does a Tamil speaker today understand the Tamil of the
classical phase, if he sees it written in today’s Tamil script? The answer is
of course a clear no!
In the case of the so-called
cognate languages – languages, mutually intelligible to a considerable extent -
it is different. If an Odia speaker cannot read a Bengali text, although he has
no problem comprehending it when it is read out to him, it is because the
script is a barrier. All he needs is to learn the script, if the text is unavailable
to him in either the “Odia” script or a common script such as the Roman script
or say, Bharati. But the technology is available as already mentioned to make
the Bengali text available to him in the Odia script. Now for obvious reasons
he would like to read the text in Odia script, as of now – why should he choose
the rather difficult option of learning a different script?
In what situation can the common
script help? A Hindi speaker would feel miserable if he comes to a city of a
non-Hindi speaking state, where the signboards, street names, bus destinations
and the like are written in the local language script. A Tamil or Kannada
speaker will have the same experience in a Hindi-speaking state if the same
situation prevails there (it mostly does, if it is not a state capital). If in
addition, the same are written in a common script, it would certainly help, but
how many people would this really help? Would this be cost effective? Let us
concede for the sake of argument that it would be. Then the question is which
common script should be chosen? Let us imagine there are two candidates for
this at the moment: Roman script and Bharati. We cannot fail to note that there
is a growing demand in our country for English. So people are going to learn
the Roman script anyway. Then why not choose this script for the purpose
mentioned above? Why learn another and increase the learning load? True, the
Roman script has to include diacritic and other markers to represent the sounds
of our languages, and that would make it cumbersome. But for the limited
functional purpose – as mentioned above - that the Roman script has to serve,
there is no need for all this. For the intended purpose, if the Odia place name
alasuni is spelt this way rather than the phonetically correct way (“l”
is a retroflex and the second vowel is long, etc.), there is just no problem.
Suppose a common script is
imposed today on the languages in our country and their speakers. In one
generation or two the language users would find that they have no access to the
literary and the knowledge texts produced in their respective languages; in
other words, they would lose their cultural roots in a big way. Unless of
course all the texts are produced in their transliterated form. Is this a cost
effective proposition? This apart, would a Sikh accept that Guru Granth Saheb
be written in a common script, say, Roman script or Bharati? I am skeptical
that he would. The relationship between a language and a script is often emotional,
a point that the linguist Shreesh Chaudhury of IIT Madras, has made in his own interesting style, as he
gave his observations on Bharati to The Hindu.
What we need in order to improve
communication at the level of day-to-day life in our country is not a common
script, but a link language, that is accepted and used all over the country,
and also translation of material from one Indian language to another.
A new script like Bharati is
highly welcome for a different reason. There are a number of languages in our
country without a script. These are the languages that tend to be, in fact are,
most endangered. When people speak a language that has no script, they are at a
huge disadvantage in many ways. Their children have a serious problem in the
school class room from the very beginning and are very often the drop-outs from
school and they fail to take advantage of economic opportunities that their counterparts
who speak a language with a script enjoy. Script can contribute to facilitating
the cultural memory and sensitizing a speech community to its history. One can
hardly contest that languages that have no script need a script urgently.
Because there is no problem of emotional attachment to a particular script,
there might not be any problem for speakers of many such languages under
reference here, to accept Bharati or any other script, such as the Roman
script, for their respective languages. If one hesitates to regard a new script
as a significant intellectual achievement, one must not fail to celebrate it as
a powerful means of empowerment of the linguistically disadvantaged.