Did you hear this?

[Bhadraiah Mallampalli]

>Lakshmi Srinivas wrote..

>Surely this is somewhat hieratic? To be introduced in
>the curriculum, why should modern Indian languages
>need any kind of precedent? Isn't it enough that these
>languages are mother tongues of students?

Did we learn anything from Kali's Child? :-) Isn't Sanskrit read differently
in different regions?  It is impossible to introduce Sanskrit courses in any
state without also hiring some local scholars. Otherwise what is interpreted
in Bengal is useless in Karnataka. By the way the Sanskrit teacher must be
necessarily bilingual to be able to teach Sanskrit into formal version of
local language. I suppose the fears that local languages get neglected, or
the opinion that local languages need not be taken up are not practical. By
the way all this is pure technocratic discussion.

>From: Rohit Chopra <cosmicomic at HOTMAIL.COM> denouncing the Nehruvian vision
>as 'western' or 'elitist'.

It is not fair for any one to blame dynasty. India had dynasties all through
its history. Nehruvian vision was constrained by fear of a repeat of East
India Company if Industry is not controlled. But control raj missed out
semiconductor and other revolutions. Basically it boils down to the other
URL about military implicatons of complexity theory. A "one person's vision"
however great, is not enough for a diverse land.

Best regards
Bhadraiah
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com