Two language policy is our stand, says KDA chairman
Addressing officers of various departments in the Deputy Commissioner's office, Prof. Bilimale said that the authority has taken the ideological stand of supporting the two-language policy.
'This is based on the idea that Kannada will be the language of instruction and English and Kannada will be taught from the first standard. Other languages can be taught when children reach higher classes,' he said.
He said that the objective of institutions like KDA is to see that administration is in the language of the people.
He said that of all Indian languages, the growth of Hindi has been the fastest across the country. Between 1971 and 2011, Hindi has recorded a growth rate of 66%.
'The other major languages like Bengali, Marathi, Tamil, Telugu and Malayalam have shown growth of around 12%-13%. The slowest growth has been of Kannada. It has grown only by 3.73%. If the same trend continues, then Kannada will remain only a spoken language in a few decades. It is not just a matter of figures and numbers, but it is evident in cities like Bengaluru,' he said.
'In Karnataka that has around 6.4 crore people, 25% cannot speak Kannada. We have nothing against people who speak different languages. But we expect them to learn Kannada as long as they live here. However, if other linguistic communities are not speaking Kannada, I do not hold them responsible,' he said.
'Speakers of other languages don't speak Kannada only because we have failed to teach them. KDA has taken up this responsibility. We have set up 100 Kannada training centres across the State. We are starting them in border districts like Belagavi,' he said.
'Let me clarify that we are supporters of Kannada, but not language chauvinists. We love our language, but do not hate other tongues. We are naturally concerned about the condition of Kannada and want it to be preserved for the next generations. I come from the coastal districts and have worked in Delhi for several years. I can speak several languages. I strongly believe that being bilingual is not a crime. Preserving one's mother tongue is not just the responsibility of Kannadigas. It is the sacred duty of all Indian language communities,' he said.
'Belagavi is a border district and the challenges in protecting the language here are different. I am not unaware of such issues. I accept these issues but will take steps to promote Kannada. However, we need to find creative solutions to these issues. We need to introspect on all earlier attempts and see why have we succeeded or failed,' he said.
'We should not be too bothered about historical events like linguistic reorganisation of States. The government and civil society organisations should work together in protecting and promoting Kannada,' he said.
He expressed concern over the fall in the standard of education.
'At one time, Karnataka used to be known for high standard of education. But we are now witnessing a rapid fall in the standard of education. A national level survey has revealed that half the primary school students cannot recite simple tables. I think the solution is commitment from the side of teachers and administrators to provide quality education to students,' he said.
Deputy Commissioner Mohammad Roshan, Police Commissioner Borase Bhushan Gulabrao, Superintendent of Police Bheemashakar S. Guled, KDA secretary Santosh Hangal and others were present.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hans India
13 minutes ago
- Hans India
Existing exam pattern to continue for Class X
Hyderabad: After much debate, the State government on Monday has directed that the existing pattern of examination for Class X would continue for the current academic year. Earlier, there was uncertainty and debate concerning the evaluation pattern for Class X students, with about 5 lakh students eagerly awaiting clarity. The issue stems from a government order (GO) issued in November last year, which eliminated internal marks for Class X exams from the 2025-26 academic years onward. This decision has since come under scrutiny, prompting a rethinking by the School Education Department after questions were raised at a recent National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) workshop in Delhi. The core of the problem lies in the current continuous evaluation system instituted under the Right to Education Act since 2011. Under this system, 20 marks out of 100 are allocated for internal assessments in six subjects, which include projects, unit tests, and written work, while the remaining 80 marks are for written examinations. Critics have pointed out disparities in how internal marks are awarded—private schools reportedly give full marks liberally, while government school students often receive lower marks, leading to concerns about fairness. In response to these concerns, the Education Department earlier issued a GO mandating the elimination of internal marks. However, this move triggered questions during a recent meeting in Delhi, where education officials were asked why internal marks are not used globally, including by other Indian boards such as CBSE and ICSE, and why the department chose to remove them. The dilemma deepened as the National New Education Policy advocates for student evaluation that considers more than just exam scores, promoting a 360-degree assessment approach. Adding to the internal discourse, a workshop organized at the Directorate of School Education brought together regional education officers, headmasters, subject experts, and other officials to discuss internal marks and question paper patterns. Participants expressed diverse opinions, reflecting the complexity of the issue. Consequently, proposals on these matters have been forwarded. Against this backdrop, the State government has issued an order to continue to the existing pattern of examination for Class X.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
13 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Pilot union objects to the government's call for a global code of conduct
A booming aviation market is seen as key to supporting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's aviation goals, but India is short of experienced pilots Reuters NEW DELHI A pilot union has objected to the Indian government's call for a global code of conduct on countries hiring each other's airline staff, saying the move is contrary to international norms on employment and risks creating conditions of "bonded labour". Reuters reported last week that India had raised concerns with the International Civil Aviation Organization, the UN's aviation agency, on worries that its fast-growing aviation market was being impeded by the poaching of Indian pilots and cabin crew without adequate notice. A booming aviation market is seen as key to supporting Prime Minister Narendra Modi's aviation goals, but India is short of experienced pilots. Indian government rules mandate a minimum notice period of six months for pilots and a no-objection certificate from an airline for them to join a rival. Those strict rules are currently being challenged by pilot bodies in court. In the working paper Reuters cited, India asked for the creation of a code of conduct on the movement of skilled aviation workers among ICAO's member countries. The paper didn't specify how the code of conduct would work. In a letter sent on Friday to India civil aviation minister Ram Mohan Naidu, the head of Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA India) said the working paper misdiagnosed the outflow of aviation talent. ALPA India attributed the drain to factors such as poor working conditions, a lack of job security, limited career growth opportunities and an absence of standardized pay structures at airlines. "Targeting outbound employment from India sets a dangerous precedent and is inconsistent with ICAO's principles of consensus, collaboration and international workforce mobility," ALPA India president Sam Thomas said in the letter, which was also published on the pilot union's X account. The body represents about 1,100 pilots in India. Naidu's office was not immediately available for a comment. Thomas urged Naidu to withdraw the working paper and call for an urgent consultative meeting with ALPA India and other stakeholders to discuss solutions to workforce challenges and prioritize reforms in working conditions and pay. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Mint
13 minutes ago
- Mint
Cow's milk, as well as Russian oil, fuels the US-India trade war
Donald Trump has beef with India for buying oil from Russia. But the American president's tariffs totalling 50% on many Indian exports—set to come into force later this month—are not just about geopolitics. Agriculture and dairy have been the most contentious issues in India's talks with America, which broke down this month. And it is over farming that India's equally combative prime minister, Narendra Modi, has chosen to fight back. 'India will never compromise on the wellbeing of its farmers, dairy and fishermen," he thundered in Delhi on August 7th, a day after Mr Trump's announcement. For Hindu-nationalist politicians like Mr Modi, the dairy industry has particular importance (the cow is sacred in Hinduism). But it is also a source of national pride, seen as a poverty-alleviating triumph of enlightened policymaking, technological advance and international co-operation. India is a milk superpower. For nearly three decades it has been the world's biggest producer and is now the source of about a quarter of the global total. Yet, from the point of view of India's trading partners, notably America, the industry seems to sum up all that is wrong with India. It is grossly inefficient, subsidised, polluting (all that methane) and heavily protected by high tariff barriers and a perplexing lattice of arcane non-tariff ones. Can these diametrically opposed views be reconciled? The answer matters a lot to India's trade diplomacy. It is not just America that complains about access to the Indian market. It is a sticking-point in negotiations with the European Union, too, and was one of the thorniest issues in the negotiations leading to a free-trade agreement with Britain signed last month. It may also have been the main reason why India pulled out of a big regional trade deal in 2019. Indian dairy still basks in the glow of a 'white revolution" launched in 1970. At the time Indians already had more cattle than any other country, but they consumed an average of about 100 millilitres of milk a day, far below recommended nutritional standards. Some of that had to be imported. By the turn of the century India had virtually doubled the availability of milk per person. Dairy practices had been modernised and the cross-breeding of cattle had boosted yields. A network of tens of thousands of co-operatives had been established, improving distribution and logistics, financed by the sale of skimmed milk powder and butter donated by the European Economic Community, the EU's forebear. Yields have continued to improve this century, but the structure of the industry remains unchanged. 'White Revolution 2.0", launched by the government last year, aims not to reform but expand it, with co-operatives increasing milk procurement by 50% over five years. Production will still depend on tens of millions of smallholders—families with a cow that grazes on their plot, produces dung and urine to be used as fertiliser, and provides milk for the family, sometimes with a surplus to sell. Himanshu (who goes by one name), a professor of economics at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, points out that Mr Modi and Mr Trump are both very 'pro-farmer". But their farmers, including dairy farmers, could hardly be more different. India has about 200m cattle, of which the United States Department of Agriculture estimates 62m are dairy cows. Yet the average 'herd" consists of fewer than four, and the average landholding of just one hectare. A number widely used is that 80m families have one or more cows or buffaloes. America has just 24,000 dairy farms, with an average herd size of about 390. Co-operatives guarantee Indian farmers a buyer for their milk, and pay them bonuses when prices rise. A handful have become big national organisations—notably Amul, from Gujarat, home state of Mr Modi and his powerful cabinet minister, Amit Shah. So vaunted is the success of the agricultural co-operative system that in July Mr Shah unveiled plans to extend it to other businesses such as tourism, taxis and green energy. Proud as Indians are of their cows and their dairy farmers, they have to admit that both are, by international standards, woefully unproductive. The average American cow produces about seven times as much milk as her Indian competitor. India protects its dairy farmers with import tariffs comparable to those Mr Trump is now imposing on Indian exporters: 40% on most butter and cheese and 60% on powdered milk. Without these protections, says Shashi Kumar, boss of Akshayakalpa, a privately owned organic-dairy business in southern India that works with 2,200 small farmers, 'smallholder farms will collapse". It is not just tariffs that Mr Trump's negotiators object to. India excludes imports of all genetically modified crops except cotton, and in dairy there is a ban on what has become known as 'non-veg milk"—with a requirement that imported dairy products be certified to come from cows that had not been fed animal products such as bonemeal. The ban is often decried as a non-tariff barrier dressed up in politically correct Hindu-nationalist clothes. Vijay Sardana, a lawyer and agri-economist, points out it was in fact introduced in 2003, when he drafted the law in response to the BSE (mad-cow disease) scare in Europe. Still, the perception that the Indian government will use any available tactic to protect its farmers is probably justified. Harish Damodaran, the agriculture editor of the Indian Express, a newspaper, points out that twice in four years India's farmers have fended off attempts at reform. In 2021 their prolonged, angry protests in Delhi forced Mr Modi to repeal three laws introducing sensible deregulatory reforms. Mr Trump's effort to impose change through diplomacy may prove equally fruitless.
