The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in

This article was downloaded by: 10.3.98.104On: 27 Feb 2022Access details: subscription numberPublisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG, UK

The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education inBangladesh

Shaila Sultana, M. Moninoor Roshid, Md. Zulfeqar Haider, Mian Md.Naushaad Kabir, Mahmud Hasan Khan

A Balanced Approach to Language-in-Education Policy and Planning inBangladesh

Publication detailshttps://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780429356803-3

Tania Rahman

How to cite :- Tania Rahman. 18 Dec 2020, A Balanced Approach to Language-in-Education Policy and Planning in Bangladesh from: The RoutledgeHandbook of English Language Education in Bangladesh RoutledgeAccessed on: 27 Feb 2022https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780429356803-3

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR DOCUMENT

Full terms and conditions of use: https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/legal-notices/terms

This Document PDF may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproductions,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete oraccurate or up to date. The publisher shall not be liable for an loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damageswhatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3

33

3A BALANCED APPROACH TO LANGUAGE-IN-EDUCATION POLICY AND PLANNING IN

BANGLADESHRethinking the current trend

Tania Rahman

Introduction

In national language policy and planning in developing countries in Asia in the new millen-nium, striking a balance between maintenance of national unity, representation of national and ethnic identities, and survival in the global economic world have become challenging (Rappa & Wee, 2006). These broad issues of language policy and planning are also reflected in language-in-education policies and planning activities in these contexts (Rappa & Wee, 2006). In Bangladesh, for instance, national language-in-education planning is a thorny matter because of two competing issues: the emotional attachment to the national language, Bangla, and the growing popularity of English to attain upward social mobility. Bangladeshi nation-alism is largely symbolised by Bangla, which is proclaimed as the ‘state’ language in the country’s constitution (Government of Bangladesh, 1972, Act 3, p. 2). All policies regarding language and language-in-education in Bangladesh since independence have been geared by ideologies in support of monolingual rather than bilingual (i.e. English and Bangla) policies to promote Bangla only (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007). In the latest National Education Policy of 2010, how-ever, the need for English education in Bangladesh has been expressed with suggestions to upgrade the current situation of English Language Teaching in Bangladesh. The Policy indicates the need for sequential transition to English-medium instruction by keeping the options open for schools to choose English as the medium of instruction (MoI) at the secondary level of edu-cation. It, however, lacks explicit and clear directions to strike a balance between the polarising demands of the groups regarding education in Bangla, the mother tongue of the demograph-ically largest group, and in the international language English. Till now, no effective step has been taken to solve such problems. There is also currently a need for workable theoretical frameworks or models to justify a bi-/multilingual language-in-education policy and planning for Bangladesh.

The main objective of the chapter is to propose a working theoretical framework for language-in-education planning in Bangladesh. The framework draws on the ‘language policy as a balan-cing act’ approach (Rappa & Wee, 2006) and is based on the ‘language-as-resource’ orientation (Ruiz, 1984). The primary goal of the chapter is to propose a sequentially bi-/multilingual

BK-TandF-SULTANA_9780367405755-200145-Chp03.indd 33 12/10/20 5:08 PM

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3

Tania Rahman

34

framework integrating education in the country’s national language Bangla and in the inter-national language English.

This chapter is significant in three ways. First, in Bangladesh since independence in 1971, the national language-in-education planning schemes have played a crucial role in bringing changes in the usage of language in the country’s education sector. However, no policy initiative actually defined the proper roles of the different languages, including the national language Bangla, the colonial language English, and the indigenous languages existing in the country. Therefore, this chapter offers a relevant rationale for defining the roles of languages in Bangladesh. Second, since the roles of English and Bangla, including other languages in Bangladesh, are not clearly defined, which is reflected in the debates regarding the selection of either English or Bangla as the MoI in the mainstream education system that follows a national curriculum, this has been one of the important indicators of competition between English and Bangla in the country. A major issue emerging from this disassociation is the conflict between the Bangla-oriented Bangladeshi national identity represented by Bangla and the socially constructed identity represented by a previously colonial but currently a significant international language, English. The chapter, there-fore, explores the conflict between the sentiment related to the Bangalee/Bangladeshi national identity and a desire to participate in the global economy. The chapter also investigates how the country’s language-in-education planning has aided sustaining the conflict. Third, by proposing the framework, the chapter examines if a certain level of ‘complementarity’ or a certain level of harmonious position for the languages in Bangladesh can be reached in the national language-in-education planning by offering education sequentially in Bangla and English.

This chapter consists of three major sections. At first, it presents a discussion on the national identity formation in Bangladesh and the role of language-in-education planning in the for-mation of the Bangalee/Bangladeshi identity. The next section presents a review of literature on various perspectives regarding identity and language-in-education planning followed by the framework and analyses of its components showing its potential for application in Bangladesh. The concluding section summarises the implications of the framework.

Nationalism, identity, and language-in-education planning in Bangladesh

The concept of identity, particularly group identity such as national identity, is highly problem-atic, which indicates a variety of questions and tensions. From an essentialist perspective, the identity of a nation as a group is ‘static’ (Norton, 2000; Weedon, 1997) and ‘standardised’ (Joseph, 2004), whereas from a constructivist viewpoint, the formation of national identity is a complex, dynamic, and constant process. For the essentialist political scientist, in order to form a nation, group internal differences have to be eliminated and non-conformity has to be checked (Phillips, 2010). On the contrary, the dynamic feature of identity is reflected in constructivist claims of nation-forming as a ‘process’ in which, unlike the primordialist/essentialist stance on nations as ‘ancient’, ‘eternal’, and ‘fixed’ entities (May, 2001), the concept of the nation is neither exclusive of the past nor ‘an infinite continuity’ and that ethnic groups often go through ‘radical trans-formation’ of their ‘pre-modern’ identities when they become nations (Smith, 1995a, b). Here, Hall’s (1996a, b) conceptualisation of ‘identity-as-process’ is significant in viewing nationalism as ‘dynamic’ rather than ‘fixed’ and ‘unchanging’. Considering the historic and social circumstances, which are flexible and variable, the identity of a nation also evolves with those circumstances. Change is inevitable in these circumstances, which determine the formation of a national identity. In the constructivist orientation, then, the formation of the identity of a group such as a nation is considered a ‘process’ in which individuals and their acquaintances categorically belong to the


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3

Language-in-education policy and planning

35

group (Joseph, 2004). Hall (1996a, b) discusses this notion of ‘identity-in-process’ and holds that identification takes place when others recognise the common origins and characteristics which individuals in a group share with the rest of the members of that group (Hall, 1996b, pp. 2–4).

In the process of identity formation, imagination and memory play very ‘essential’ roles. Imagination holds a crucial place in Anderson’s (1991) conceptualisation of the nation as an ‘imagined political community’:

It is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion….it is imagined as a community, because, regard-less of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship.

(Anderson, 1991, pp. 6–7)

In such imaginations, the collective memory of a shared past, the historical narratives that a com-munity inherits and shares over generations, essentially functions to preserve the internal cohe-sion of the group (Tallentire, 2001, p. 197).

In such arguments of identity, language is considered a significant marker of group member-ship such as a ‘boundary marker’ (Heller, 1987; Tabouret-Keller, 1997), or ‘symbolic border guards’ (Armstrong, 1982). Whether a speaker belongs to the dominant group or not depends on not only how the individual speaker values the language but also how the dominant group decides the value of the language (Bourdieu, 1997). For example, in Bangladesh, Bangla has the highest status and 98% Bangladeshi nationals belong to the Bangalee ethnic group. The Bangladeshi national identity, besides territorial autonomy and sovereignty, draws on the ‘shared cultural heritage’ and a shared past of the Bangalee ethnicity regardless of the existence of the multiple ethnicities within the nation. Leaning on the shared historical narratives of a rich cultural heritage, the Bangalee ethni-city and Bangladeshi nationalism are both represented by the national language Bangla, which is the mother tongue of most of the people in the country. Most of the people in Bangladesh speak different varieties of a single language, Bangla. The linguistic homogeneity of the people of this land inspired the birth of the nation. It fuelled the Language Movement or Bhasha Andolon during the oppressive rule of Pakistan on February 21 in 1952 when the Bangla-speaking people in the then East Pakistan fought and protested against the imposition of Urdu over Bangla as the state language. On the other hand, English arrived in Bangladesh when the East India Company started functioning in Bengal in 1757. The status of English as a major official language of the land persisted through the Partition of 1947 till the independence of Bangladesh in 1971. Currently, English is used in Bangladesh as ‘an important language of government, education, and the media’, mostly by the urban elites that comprise a small section of the total population (Hossain and Tollefson, 2007, p. 243). About 80% of the country’s population living in the rural areas, however, have little or no access to English language education (Hossain and Tollefson, 2007; Imam, 2005; Rahman, 2010).

The concepts of national ‘cultural traditions’ and ‘heritage’ in Bangladesh are mainly attributed to Bangla language and culture, as reflected in official documents such as the Constitution of 1972 (Mohsin, 2003). As the Bangladeshi national identity is historically associated with the Bangla language and Bangalee ethnic identity, the language planning of the country, particu-larly the status and language-in-education planning, is largely Bangla-oriented. The ‘emotional’ attachment of the speakers of Bangla in Bangladesh rests upon a shared history of hegemony and struggle in which Bangla is associated with the struggle and sacrifices for sovereignty and freedom, whereas English and Urdu are linked with hegemony and as the weapon of the British and Pakistani colonisers as the hegemonic rulers of the land. Currently, however, such antagonistic


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3

Tania Rahman

36

attitudes towards English in Bangladesh are changing as reflected in opinions of groups supporting English language education in the country since independence in 1971. Such change of attitudes towards English may be attributed to the ‘political nature of history and memory’ (Tallentire, 2001, p. 199) of the Bangladeshi nation. As Tallentire (2001) writes about the political nature of memory in shaping the identity of a nation, she explains the dynamic nature of national memory as dependent on “the past as the legitimizer and the source of the ideals, success, character, and boundaries of the nation” (p. 200). She characterises the memory of a nation as “spontaneous or manipulated, directed at internal or external audiences, and full of internal divisions and contro-versies” (Tallentire, 2001, p. 200). Such memories are primarily manipulated by “social elites and involves the dominant frames of identity, formed and transmitted by governments, schools, the media, and academics” (Tallentire, 2001, p. 199). Although significance for education in English in Bangladesh was initially voiced by the educated elites of the country, nowadays it has turned into a necessity for the mass of the land. The political memory related to Bangla and English in Bangladesh is thus “dynamic, negotiated between the individual and the community, between personal experience and wider historical events” (Tallentire, 2001, p. 199).

Although the nation-making process in Bangladesh has been ‘dynamic’, similar to the ‘identity-as-process’ perspective (Hall, 1996a, b), the Bangalee/Bangladeshi identification of the nation has been primarily essentialist, either affiliated to a religion-influenced and territorially sovereign Bangladeshi nationality, or a secular Bangalee nationalism. In all these developments, language has played a crucial part in shaping the present Bangladeshi national identity.

The development of ‘Bangalee’/‘Bangladeshi’ identity of the nation of present-day Bangladesh evolved in three phases: pre-independence, independence, and post-independence phases. In all three phases, hegemony was a common thread and language played a crucial role in the hege-monic practices of the colonisers. The first phase of Bangalee nationalism owes much to the Bengal Renaissance movement, which sparked over the Partition of Bengal, dividing the Bangla-speaking part of India under the British rule into two administrative parts in 1905: The Hindu-oriented West Bengal and the Muslim-majority East Bengal (Majumdar, 1943; Sengupta, 2001). At that time, English was used by the British colonisers to produce English-educated natives to run the colonial administration (Ferguson, 2004). Access to English education later provided the basis for interracial divisions between English-educated Hindus and Muslims, and such social divides furthered later to internal divisions within the religious groups. However, despite supported by the English-educated Muslim Bangalee elites, the Partition was withdrawn facing strong opposition from the influential Hindu Bangalee community (Majumdar, 1943; Sengupta, 2001). Later, during the partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, the Muslim-majority East Bengal was tied with Muslim-majority West Pakistan based on religious ideologies overlooking the geo-graphical, ethnolinguistic, and cultural gaps between the two parts of the new nation of Pakistan. At that time, the Muslim Bangalee elites and leaders in East Bengal who felt ‘adrift and in need of confirmation of their identity’ chose religion over language and cultural ethnicity to merge with the Islam-oriented nation of West Pakistan (Thompson, 2007, p. 38).

The second phase of Bangalee/Bangladeshi nationhood is marked by the events leading to the independence of Bangladesh from Pakistan and the political scenario in independent Bangladesh. The emergence of Bangladeshi nationalism was due to the reaction of East Pakistan to the “hegemony of West Pakistani nationalism which was primarily based on religion” (Mohsin, 2003, p. 81). Among the many causes for the failure in integrating the Bangla-speaking people in the Pakistani nation-building process, the Pakistani rulers’ diminutive and hegemonic atti-tude towards Bangla was instrumental. This attitude acted towards the revival of the Bangalee identification of the people in East Pakistan which sparked the Language Movement [Bhasha Andolon] in 1952 (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007; Imam, 2005; Mohsin, 2003; Thompson, 2007).


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3


37

Later, the identification process of the majority Bangla-speaking people in East Pakistan as a sep-arate nation culminated into the people’s victory against Pakistan in the War of Independence in 1971, creating an independent Bangladeshi nation. After independence, during the rule of the Awami League government led by Sheikh Mujibur Rahman who led the nation in the War of Independence, the national identity of the people of Bangladesh was characterised as a ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ Bangalee identity, which reflected in the country’s adoption of the four-folded state ideology – nationalism, democracy, socialism, and secularism (Hashmi, 2004, p. 35) and in the ruling party’s wartime slogan ‘Joi Bangla’ [‘Victory to Bengal’] (Muhith, 1978). Mohsin (2003, p. 98) calls it the ‘Bengali model of nationhood’.

Since independence, the identification of Bangalee/Bangladeshi nationalism has evolved with the rise of a number of nationalist ideologies. An exclusionary nationalistic ideology largely related to religious and territorial integrity surfaced with the emergence of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party formed and led by Ziaur Rahman after the military coup following the assas-sination of President Sheikh Mujib in 1975 (Hashmi, 2004; Mohsin, 2003). This ideology of Bangladeshi nationalism viewed the Bangladeshi people as Islam oriented and distinct as opposed to the more liberal Bangalee identity preached by the Awami League ideology (Hashmi, 2004). It was based on another four-pronged ideology – land, language, culture, and religion (Mohsin, 2003). These two ideologies – the ‘socialist-secular-Bengali nationalist’ and the ‘Islam-oriented Bangladeshi nationalist’ – were the main driving forces in shaping an independent Bangladeshi nationalism. Later, after the assassination of President Zia in 1981, the military government of President Hussein Mohammad Ershad held on to the ‘Bangladeshi model of nationhood’ (Mohsin, 2003, p. 98). The framework in this chapter, then, shows how ‘complementarity’ in Bangladeshi language-in-education planning may be achieved by creating a harmonious position for the different languages in the country.

Language-in-education planning as a balancing act: The framework

The framework discussed in this chapter combines principles of language policy as a ‘balancing act’ (Rappa & Wee, 2006) with the ‘language as resource’ orientation (Ruíz, 1984). The model is based on the principle that language policies are part of a complex web of “linguistic and non-linguistic elements, variables and factors” (Spolsky, 2004, p. 41). Upon analysis of the language policy context in Bangladesh, it proposes that an inclusive language policy should be aimed at viewing languages as socio-cultural resources upholding national and cultural identities of their speakers along with emphasising the instrumental values of the languages. With this objective, the framework aims at achieving a level of ‘complementarity’ among three elements – national unity, ethnolinguistic diversity, and socio-economic opportunity – by proposing a harmonious coex-istence among the languages of wider communication (e.g. Bangla and English in Bangladesh) in education. In the model proposed for language-in-education planning in Bangladesh in this chapter, the concept of national unity is represented as the ‘non-instrumental’ element and socio-economic opportunity as the ‘instrumental’ element. In order to explain the connection between these components of the framework, the resource aspect of language will be discussed below to justify the rationale for adopting the ‘balancing act’ approach to develop the framework for language-in-education planning in Bangladesh.

As the questions of uniformity and diversity are the focal ones in the discussion of the com-plexities of identities of groups such as nations, language plays a powerful role in defining and characterising such identities. In particular, in the history of human civilisation, language has been crucial in shaping group identities such as identities of nations. Three orientations to this interplay between language and society may be highlighted here – ‘language-as-problem’,


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3

Tania Rahman

38

‘language-as-right’, and ‘language-as-resource’. According to the ‘language-as-problem’ orienta-tion, linguistic diversity is viewed as problematic and an obstacle to national unity. In this per-spective, language is sometimes considered as a ‘political problem’ maintaining that “perpetuating language minorities and language diversity may cause less integration, less cohesiveness, more antagonism and more conflict in society which is to be solved by assimilation into the majority language” (Baker, 2006, p. 384). The ‘language-as-right perspective’, on the other hand, views language as one of the basic human rights and calls for state protection of the minority languages when they are at stake (e.g. Skutnabb-Kangas, 1988, 2000; Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 1995). Such a protectionist stand, however, may cause strain to ethnolinguistic divisions as it demands share of limited national resources on ethnolinguistic grounds. In contrast to these perspectives, the ‘language-as-resource’ perspective views the value of languages as resources in the society in a number of ways.

First, the ‘language-as-resource’ perspective highlights the symbolic value of language, which rests in its ‘representative’ function (Joseph, 2004) determining the identity of the ‘self ’ as well as marking ‘group membership’ (Armstrong, 1982; Heller, 1987; Tabouret-Keller, 1997). Second, in materialist terms, language can be viewed as a sort of ‘capital’ (Bourdieu, 1991, 1986, 1984). In Bourdieu’s theory, capital as a source of influence in a social context can be in many forms: eco-nomic, cultural, social, and so on. Bourdieu (1984) conceives of the ‘cultural capital’ as providing the means to accumulate ‘wealth’. While the economic capital can give access to a number of resources, the ‘social capital’ (Bourdieu, 1986) opens the door to social networks. The different forms of capital are also interconnected. For example, the command of the appropriate language or ‘symbolic capital’ in the acquisition of ‘cultural capital’ during academic education can give access to restricted social networks, that is, ‘social capital’ which, in turn, may open doors to eco-nomic opportunities. Third, besides its ‘economic bridge building potential’ (Baker, 2006, p. 391), the ‘language-as-resource’ perspective sees languages as having the potential to ‘bridge’ the social gap between various communities (Baker, 2006, p. 391) and influence social relationships by allowing intercultural communication. In this sense, the languages can be ‘assets’, not only for individuals but also for groups to “aid individual participation in public, leisure and private lives” (Baker, 2006, p. 390). Finally, linguistic diversity is generally associated with ‘national or regional disunity’ and ‘inter-group conflict’ (Baker, 2007, p. 186). However, the ‘language-as-resource’ per-spective (Ruiz, 1984) holds that ‘linguistic diversity’ is responsible for neither division nor lesser cohesion in a society. Instead, promotion of linguistic diversity can foster a balanced atmosphere of tolerance, cooperation, and harmony among speakers of different linguistic as well as speech communities, whereas its suppression may disrupt the balance.

For achieving ‘complementarity’ among the languages in a developing nation as Bangladesh, identity is a significant issue to be considered. In societies where linguistic homogeneity is the widespread norm (such as in Bangladesh where 98% or 100 million people (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007, p. 242) speak the same language, Bangla), linguistic diversity is likely to be viewed as causing strife in national unity. A balanced language policy and planning, therefore, needs to address these constraints.

In order to propose a balanced language policy and planning for Bangladesh, it is, at first, important to consider various perspectives in the discussions of language policy and planning. Just two decades before the new millennium, particularly since the 1980s, several models have been propounded to address various issues in regards to developing nations separately. Among them, three have been the major stances in the study of language planning and policy. According to one of the views, in a society, the group in power dominates over others by exercising power and hegemony, and the language preferred by or of the powerful group thrives over other languages as a result of the hegemonic practices (Tollefson, 1991). The next perspective considers the right


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3


39

to use a language as a basic human right, and holds on to the belief that ‘linguistic genocide’ occurs because the dominant or majority languages are preferred over dominated or minority languages in all domains of language use; the minority language speakers face devaluation from the majority language speakers, which leads towards ‘linguistic genocide’ (e.g. Skutnabb-Kangas & Phillipson, 2008). Unlike these approaches, according to the instrumentalist view of language policy, language is ‘a social and political resource’, and it proposes a utilitarian perspective of language use (Spolsky, 2004). A reconciling position is sought by language planning as a ‘balan-cing act’ approach (Rappa & Wee, 2006), which addresses the need for taking constraints into account in analysing language planning. According to this view, three different relations in lan-guage policy analyses are found in language planning, specifically in Asia (Rappa & Wee, 2006), where the elements of language policy and planning are either seen as ‘on par with another’ (equivalence), for example, language policy in Singapore, or in competition (displacement), for example, policies regarding Malay and English in Malaysia, or in a ‘harmonious’ situation (com-plementarity), for example, the bilingual policy in Singapore consisting of English as the language of ‘Western science and technology’ and the mother tongues representing ‘ancient cultures and values’ (p. 22).

An instrumentalist view of language planning considers that “much of current social life is driven by economic demands” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 129), and language uses as social functions are also influenced by those demands. Such an approach presupposes a theory of power recognising different forms of capital which have differentiated values, and of these capitals, “eco-nomic capitals tend to wield greater influence than other capital” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 129). The theory of power inherent in this argument is taken forward in the instrumentalist defin-ition of language-in-education planning as “a form of imposition and manipulation of language policy as it is used by those in authority to turn ideology into practice through formal education” (Shohamy, 2006, p. 76). In all these instrumentalist arguments, the utilitarian values of a language are emphasised over its symbolic values overshadowing its significance in representation of cul-ture and identity. However, the instrumentalist view seems to be questionable for two reasons. First, by emphasising utilitarian values over other aspects of a language, the view mostly overlooks its symbolic value of representing identity. Second, when ethnicity is viewed solely as an instru-mental resource the differences in power relations are not adequately addressed.

On the other hand, since the education sector is considered to be ‘the transmitter and per-petuator of culture’ (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997, p. 123), language-in-education planning activities are capable of representing cultural diversity, for example, through mother tongue-based bi-/multilingual education in societies where linguistic diversity is the norm (Baker, 2007, p. 187). The bilingual language-in-education policy in Singapore, for instance, includes mother tongue instruction for the Chinese, Malay, and Indian communities in Mandarin, Malay, and Tamil languages, respectively, besides receiving education in English.

Language planning as a ‘balancing act’ (Rappa & Wee, 2006) addresses both instrumentalist and non-instrumentalist functions of language. The instrumentalist function of language “justifies its existence in a community in terms of its usefulness in achieving specific utilitarian goals such as economic development, access to social goods, or facilitating inter-ethnic communication” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 24). On the contrary, the non-instrumental function of the language entails that it “is viewed non-instrumentally to the extent that it is seen as forming an integral part of one’s ethnic or cultural identity, and if its existence in a community is justified in terms of its symbolic value in allowing the community members to maintain a sense of identity” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 24). Such a view regards ‘linguistic instrumentalism’ as ‘gradient’ rather than ‘absolute’, that is, “a language may gradually acquire greater degrees of linguistic instrumentalism as over time, its value in performing various utilitarian functions may come to overshadow its


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3

Tania Rahman

40

role in sustaining cultural identities” (Rappa & Wee, 2006, p. 24). The utilitarian functions of languages may range from facilitating inter-ethnic communication to gaining access to education and employment.

Therefore, language-in-education planning can be instrumental in realising how certain ideologies can create conflicts in relation to national/ethnic identities as well as how the conflicts can be managed. Language-in-education policies favouring assimilation are often based on the contention that linguistic diversity is responsible for causing ‘social unrest or disintegration in society’, and therefore promotion of different languages and ethnic diversity ‘might provoke group conflict and disharmony’ (Baker, 2007, p. 187). This assumption has been countered in pluralist policies that consider linguistic diversity as a resource rather than a problem to society and reflect the belief that it leads to ‘better integration, harmony and social peace’ (Baker, 2007, p. 187). It is on the basis of this argument that linguistic diversity is seen as providing the eco-nomic, social, and civic resources in a multicultural society rather than leading to social strife. In addition, pluralist language-in-education policies may actually manage resistance to authority in developing an inclusive education policy. By arguing for the potential of representation of ethno-linguistic identities as well as opening doors to economic opportunities through the mother tongue, the pluralist policies can also convince minority group members for working towards integrating with the nation, which could be initiated through a balanced bi-/multilingual educa-tion policy and planning. In this way, bilingual language-in-education policies can be a ‘balancing act’ by managing resistance from all quarters.

In language-in-education planning, questions related to MoI involve the choices or selections of languages as the MoI in the early years of education based on decisions regarding whether the mother tongue of the children should be the main MoI, and if mother tongue should be the primary MoI, for how long a child should be educated in the mother tongue as the pri-mary MoI in the course of education. Language-in-education planning in Bangladesh has been problematic due to the dissention among various quarters of academics regarding the MoI at different levels of educational institutions. One group of policymakers advocated for English as the MoI for its association with upward mobility in the social ladder. Another group held English as alien to the national and ethnolinguistic identity of the Bangla-speaking majority and advocated for Bangla as the MoI based on the reasoning that education offered in Bangla can provide “reasonable opportunity for all students to acquire subject-matter know-ledge, as well as permitting instruction in English as a foreign language” (Hossain, 2004). Finally, acknowledging both the importance of English for progress and the possible threat of its harnessing ‘serious inequalities’ among the people, the third group supports a sequentially bilingual education, which introduces Bangla-medium instruction in primary grades, grad-ually shifts to English at the high-school level, and culminates in English-medium instruction in tertiary levels. The instrumental and non-instrumental roles of languages, however, have not been considered together so far in deciding the language of education in Bangladesh. The MoI debate in language-in-education policies since independence gave rise to three types of instruction in the mainstream education in Bangladesh, differentiated according to lan-guage and religion: Bangla medium, English medium, and Madrasah or religious instruction for Muslims (Hossain & Tollefson, 2007, p. 251). In Bangla-medium schools, in both public and private sectors, all courses except English and religious studies are offered in Bangla. The ‘private’ English-medium schools, on the contrary, use a UK-based ‘globalised curriculum’ and more resources than the lesser resourced public- or government-funded Bangla-medium schools (Imam, 2005).

In Bangladesh, the emphasis on Bangla as the MoI in language-in-education policies since independence, besides the nationalist ideology, largely owes to the fact that a huge portion of the


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3


41

country’s population comprises the Bangla-speaking Bangalee community. Therefore, the ‘widely accepted communal solution’ to the question of selecting the MoI has been to choose Bangla over other languages in the country. In so doing, language-in-education planning activities in the country have actually embodied the prevalent ideology viewing ‘linguistic unity’ as ‘the societal norm’ that represents national identity as opposed to ‘the reality of linguistic diversity’ (Kaplan & Baldauf, 1997, p. 123).

The components of the framework – national unity, ethnolinguistic identity, and socio-economic opportunities – as presented at the beginning of this chapter, are shown in Figure 3.1 represented by the use of the languages in Bangladesh in its education sector. The framework presents a language-in-education policy that will reconcile the conflict between Bangla and English in Bangladesh in resolving issues between national and ethnolinguistic identity and socio-economic gains. It advocates a ‘balancing act’ framework taking the view that linguistic human rights must be respected while at the same time developing policies that allow the teaching of mother tongue to the speakers, which effectively tips the balance towards nationalistic belonging as well as opening up socio-economic opportunities for the people in Bangladesh.

Currently in Bangladesh, an effectively managed language-in-education planning is needed since the current educational planning in the country is predominantly Bangla oriented. In con-trast, the framework proposed here is bi-/multilingual. It proposes that the mother tongue(s) need to be valued and taught at the primary level of education to the children of Bangladesh. English as the second language for these children and MoI may be introduced at a later level. In this way, by developing literacy skills in their mother tongue(s) first, the people in Bangladesh will be able to retain and represent their respective ethnic identities as well as participate in the main-stream society as Bangladeshi nationals. In addition, by learning the national language Bangla and

Figure 3.1 An integrative model of language-in-education planning in Bangladesh


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3

Tania Rahman

42

then the international language English, they can increase their potential as human resources by gaining access to economic opportunities such as mainstream education and employment.

The need for English and English education for Bangladeshi nationals is manifold for various reasons. First, we need to communicate in English to conduct business with foreigners. Second, the importance of English in our education and students’ lives is undeniable since English remains a major MoI in English-medium schools and most of the tertiary-level books are written in English. English is also needed for going abroad for higher education. If Bangladeshi students have poor command over English, it may cause difficulty for them to adjust with the alien environment abroad. Moreover, admission procedures in foreign universities nowadays require certificates and transcripts to be written in English. So, without academic records written in English, admissions in foreign universities become impossible for our students.

Hence, in Bangladesh, a language-in-education planning needs to link ethnolinguistic iden-tity with the concept of an ‘inclusive’ Bangladeshi nationalism. A mother tongue-based bi-/multilingual education planning in the country involving the mother tongue(s) of the people, the national language Bangla, and the international language English can integrate the three-fold purposes of ethnolinguistic identity maintenance, national identity construction, and socio-economic development by means of human resource development. In this way, by providing a harmonious combination of the mother tongue(s), the national language Bangla, and the inter-national language English in the domain of education, the balancing act framework serves to present the languages in a complementary relation. Instead of competing with each other, the languages will complement each other, with the mother tongue(s) symbolising the ethnolin-guistic identities, Bangla representing Bangladeshi nationalism, and both Bangla and English providing the key to socio-economic opportunities.

Conclusion

The resource perspective of linguistic diversity in the language-in-education planning framework shows significant implications for the role of language planning activities in economic develop-ment and national/ethnic identity maintenance. It considers languages as having instrumental value besides sentimental attachments. Such an orientation makes room for considering the potentials of languages in national resource management. The challenge facing language planning in achieving the goal of identity maintenance is to carry the economic value of languages beyond their cultural values to a point where access to different languages opens the door to economic opportunities by allowing access to the ‘linguistic market’ (Bourdieu, 1991). Effective education and teaching in languages can be a starting point to achieve this purpose. For this, language, iden-tity, and economic realities need to be integrated into a coherent language planning tool, utilising comparative advantages of local culture facing competition in the linguistic market.

The framework is based on the argument for a sequential transition from a mother tongue-based MoI to the second language-based MoI without disrupting competence in the mother tongue (Baker, 2006). ‘Strong’ forms of bi-/multilingual education initiatives involving mother tongues besides the dominant second languages enhance achievements such as “maintaining the home language and culture”, and “fostering self-esteem, self-identity and a more positive attitude to schooling” (Baker, 2007, p. 187). Such improved attainments are said to “enable better usage of human resources in a country’s economy and less wastage of talent” and the increased self-esteem is expected to be related to greater ‘social harmony and peace’ (Baker, 2007 p. 187).

Therefore, it can be said that linguistic diversity and bi-/multilingual education involving the teaching of more than one language as macro-level language-in-education planning activities can yield positive outcomes for language planning in even monolingual societies. Considering


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3


43

dominant attitudes towards linguistic diversity and bi-/multilingual education in the society, all sites of resistance can be managed if the prospects of a sequentially bi-/multilingual educa-tion system are viewed from a twin perspective. First of all, such educational practices should promote self-control and self-identity of the language speaking group within broader national identity and practices. Second, such initiatives should be regarded as resource-generating activ-ities by engaging in human resource development through the use of languages to gain access to restricted social networks to lead to economic opportunities. To make this possible, there is the need for a gradual replacement of the dominant language-as-problem attitude by the language-as-resource perspective viewing bi-/multilingualism as a resource in language-planning activities.

The National Education Policy of 2010 in Bangladesh re-recognises the need for education in English to develop a “strong and progressive knowledge-based and information technology-oriented society” (Chowdhury & Kabir, 2014, p. 12). The policy further recommended for emphasising written and spoken skills of Bangladeshi students in English even at the very early stages of education and to continue the training till higher levels. The Policy also has provisions for schools to opt for English as a MoI at the secondary level. At this point, the transition to English-medium instruction should start earlier than the secondary school level, may be at the junior school level, as indicated earlier in the Qudrat-E-Khuda Commission Report of 1974, offering English-medium instruction for two subjects at the beginning, then gradually extending English-medium instruction to three, four, and more subjects in the later years of schooling. Such sequential transition from Bangla- to English-medium instruction for all schools in Bangladesh would enable all students in Bangladesh to access knowledge and develop skills in English and contribute to the national economy as potential human resources skilled in English for the nation. For implementing language-in-education planning as a balancing act in Bangladesh, the debate on MoI concerning Bangla or English as the language for providing education at schools, colleges, and universities should be resolved on the very outset. Next, Bangla and English should be used in a balanced way from school to university level. With this end in view, the initial years of primary level of schooling for 5 years may be mainly provided in Bangla, with gradual devel-opment of lexical, morphological, and syntactic structures of English as one of the main subjects in Bangla-medium schools. Next, at the junior school level, some more subjects like mathematics, science, social science, and geography may be gradually introduced in English – for example, mathematics in Class VI, mathematics and science in Class VII, and mathematics, science, social science, and geography in Class VIII. Finally, at the secondary and higher secondary levels, all subjects except Bangla and religion may be introduced in English with the provision of Bangla as a MoI for weaker students and for students who will not opt for formal university educa-tion. Students with an aim to go for higher education should opt for English as the MoI at the secondary and higher secondary levels. Technical and religious education should also have the provisions or options for studying in either English or Bangla as the MoI to enable the students choose their preferred MoI to access education according to their proficiency levels and needs. Next, classroom instructions and textbooks at schools and colleges should be available in both English and Bangla. The delivery of content, instructions, in-class peer-to-peer, and teacher– student interactions may be conducted in English with the provision of occasional explanations and feedback in Bangla. But code mixing should be avoided. In addition, approaches in teaching both Bangla and English in Bangladeshi educational institutions need reformation. Equal emphasis should be given in developing speaking and writing skills among students.

In order to bring about these changes, there is a need for a change in perspective towards languages in Bangladesh which will view the roles of languages in Bangladesh as complemen-tary, but not equivalent. In doing so, Bangla and other languages need to be seen as symbolising Bangladeshi culture and heritage, which emphasises the symbolic, social, cultural, and instrumental


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3

Tania Rahman

44

value of the languages. English needs to be seen as the language of access to global commerce, science, and technology, emphasising the instrumental value of the language for progress and connection to the world. Therefore, to implement language-in-education planning as a balancing act, debates such as which language we should choose to teach our children and conflicting ideolo-gies in relation to English, Bangla, and other languages in Bangladesh need to be resolved soon.

ReferencesAnderson, B. (1991). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism (Rev. ed., p. 67).

London, England: Verso.Armstrong, J. (1982). Nations before nationalism. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North California Press. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters

Ltd.Baker, C. (2007). A parents’ and teachers’ guide to bilingualism (3rd ed.). Clevedon, England: Multilingual

Matters Ltd.Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). London, England:

Routledge and Kegan Paul.Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology

of education (pp. 241–246). London, England: Greenwood Press.Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.Bourdieu, P. (1997). The economics of linguistic exchanges. Social Science Information, 16(6), 645–668.Chowdhury, R., & Kabir, A. H. (2014). Language wars: English education policy and practice in Bangladesh.

Multilingual Education, 4(21). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13616-014-0021-2 Ferguson, N. (2004, 2002). Empire: The rise and demise of the British world order and the lessons for global power.

New York, NY: Basic Books.Government of Bangladesh. (1972). Parliament debates. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Government of Bangladesh.Hall, S. (1996a). The question of cultural identity. In S. Hall, D. Held, D. Hubert, & K. Thompson (Eds.),

Modernity: An introduction to modern societies (pp. 595–634). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Hall, S. (1996b). Who needs identity [Introduction]. In S. Hall & P. du Gay (Eds.), Questions of cultural identity

(pp. 1–17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Hashmi, T. I. (2004). Islamic resurgence in Bangladesh: Genesis, dynamics and implications. In S. P. Limaye,

M. Malik, & R. G. Wirsing (Eds.), Religious radicalism and security in South Asia (pp. 35–72). Honolulu, HI: Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies.

Heller, M. (1987). The role of language in the formation of ethnic identity. In J. Phinney & M. Rotheram (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialisation: Pluralism and development (pp. 180–200). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hossain, T. (2004). English education in post-colonial Bangladesh: The use of English as a medium of instruction (Master’s thesis, International Christian University, Tokyo, Japan).

Hossain, T., & Tollefson, J. W. (2007). Language policy in education in Bangladesh. In A. B. Tsui & J. W. Tollefson (Eds.), Language policy, culture and identity in Asian contexts (pp. 241–258). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Imam, S. R. (2005). English as a global language and the question of nation-building education in Bangladesh. Comparative Education, 41(4), 471–486. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/30044556.

Joseph, J. E. (2004). Language and identity: National, ethnic, religious. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.Kaplan, R. B., & Baldauf, R. B. (1997). Language planning: From practice to theory. Clevedon, England:

Multilingual Matters.Majumdar, R. C. (1943). The history of Bengal (Vol. I). Dhaka, Bangladesh: University of Dacca (Dhaka).May, S. (2001). Language and minority rights: Ethnicity, nationalism and the politics of language. Edinburgh Gate

Harlow, England: Pearson Education Ltd.Mohsin, A. (2003). Language, identity, and the state in Bangladesh. In M. E. Brown & S. Ganguly (Eds.),

Fighting words: Language policy and ethnic relations in Asia. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Muhith, A. M. A. (1978). Bangladesh: Emergence of a nation. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Bangladesh Books International.Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Edinburgh Gate

Harlow, England: Pearson Education Ltd.Phillips, A. (2010). What’s wrong with essentialism? Distinktion: Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 11(1),

47–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/1600910X.2010.9672755


Dow

nloa

ded

By:

10.

3.98

.104

At:

20:2

5 27

Feb

202

2; F

or: 9

7804

2935

6803

, cha

pter

3, 1

0.43

24/9

7804

2935

6803

-3


45

Rahman, T. (2010). A multilingual language-in-education policy for indigenous minorities in Bangladesh: Challenges and possibilities. Current Issues in Language Planning, 11(4), 341–359.

Rappa, A. L., & Wee, L. (2006). Language policy and modernity in Southeast Asia: Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. New York, NY: Springer.

Ruiz, R. (1984). Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal, 8(2), 15–34.Sengupta, N. (2001). History of the Bengali-speaking people. New Delhi, India: UBS Publishing.Shohamy, E. (2006). Language policy: Hidden agendas and new approaches. London, England and New York, NY:

Routledge.Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (1988). Multilingualism and the education of minority children. In T. Skutnabb-

Kangas & J. Cummins (Eds.), Minority education: From shame to struggle (pp. 9–44). Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. (2000). Linguistic genocide in education—or worldwide diversity and human rights? Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (1995). Linguistic human rights, past and present. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson (Eds.), Linguistic human rights: Overcoming linguistic discrimination (pp. 71–110.). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T. & Phillipson, R. (2008). A human rights perspective on language ecology. In A. Creese, P. Martin, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Ecology of language, Encyclopedia of language and education (2nd ed., Vol. 9, pp. 3–14). New York, NY: Springer.

Smith, A. (1995a). Nations and nationalism in a global era. London, England: Penguin.Smith, A. (1995b). Gastronomy or geology? The role of nationalism in the construction of nations. Nations

and Nationalism, 1, 3–23.Spolsky, B. (2004). Language policy. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Tabouret-Keller, A. (1997). Language and identity. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), The Handbook of sociolinguistics

(pp. 315–326). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Tallentire, J. (2001). Strategies of memory: History, social memory, and the community. Social History/Histoire

Sociale, 34(67), 197–212.Thompson, H.-R. (2007). Bangladesh. In A. Simpson (Ed.), Language and national identity in Asia. Oxford,

England: Oxford University Press.Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality. New York, NY: Longman.Weedon, C. (1997). Feminist practice and poststructuralist theory (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Blackwell.


Documents

The Routledge Handbook of English Language Education in