💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Polity

  • [op-ed snap]A case for inclusion of Tulu language in the Eighth Schedule.

    Context

    With numerous languages in the country, placing all deserving languages on an equal footing will promote social inclusion and national solidarity.

    Figures and facts

    • According to the 2001 Census, India has 30 languages that are spoken by more than a million people each.
    • It also has 122 languages that are spoken by at least 10,000 people each.
    • It also has 1,599 languages, most of which are dialects.
    • These are restricted to specific regions and many of them are on the verge of extinction.
    • Article 29 provides every citizens of India with a distinct culture, language, and script, the right to conserve the same.
    • It is the responsibility of both the state and the citizens of this distinct language, script or culture to preserve the same.

    Eighth schedule and Tulu language

    • Sanskrit has 24,821 speakers and it is in the Eighth Schedule according to the 2011 Census.
    • However, many languages with sizeable speakers are not in the schedule.
    • Bhili/Bhilodi has 1,04,13,637 speakers. Garo has 11,45,323 speakers, Ho has 14,31,344 speakers.
    • Tulu is a Dravidian language whose speakers are concentrated in two coastal districts of Karnataka and in Kasaragod district of Kerala.
    • The Tulu language speakers are larger in numbers than Sanskrit and Manipuri which included in the Eighth Schedule.
    • The cities of Mangaluru, Udupi, and Kasaragod are the epicenter of Tulu culture.

    What are the benefits of being on the Eighth Schedule

    • Tulu would get recognition from Sahitya Academy.
    • The book in Tulu would get translated into other recognised Indian languages.
    • The MP’s and MLA’s could speak in Tulu in the Parliament and Assemblies.
    • Candidates could write all-India competitive examination like the Civil Services exam in Tulu.

    Yuelu Proclamation

    • It was made by UNESCO at Changsha, The People’s Republic of China, in 2018.
    • It says the protection and promotion of linguistic diversity help to improve social inclusion and partnerships.
    • It helps reduce the gender and social inequality between different native speakers.
    • It guarantee the rights for native speakers of endangered, minority, indigenous languages, as well as non-official languages and dialects to receive education, enhance the social inclusion level and social decision-making ability by encouraging them to participate in a series of actions to promote cultural diversity, endangered language protection, and the protection of intangible cultural heritage.

    Conclusion

    • Tulu, along with other deserving languages, should be included in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution in order to substantially materialise the promise of equality of status and opportunity mentioned in the Preamble.

  • State can regulate minority institutions, says Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has held that the state is well within its rights to introduce a regulatory regime in the “national interest” to provide minority educational institutions with well-qualified teachers in order for them to “achieve excellence in education.”

    Article 30 is not absolute

    • The verdict said that Article 30(1) (right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice) was neither absolute nor above the law.
    • The regulatory law should however balance the dual objectives of ensuring standard of excellence as well as preserving the right of the minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions.
    • Regulations that embrace and reconcile the two objectives should be reasonable.
    • The managements of minority institutions cannot ignore such a legal regime by saying that it is their fundamental right under Article 30.

    Serving the national interest

    • A regulation framed in the national interest must necessarily apply to all institutions regardless whether they are run by majority or minority as the essence of Article 30(1) is to ensure equal treatment between the majority and minority institutions.
    • An objection can certainly be raised if an unfavorable treatment is meted out to an educational institution established and administered by minority.
    • But if ensuring of excellence in educational institutions is the underlying principle behind a regulatory regime and the mechanism of selection of teachers is so designed to achieve excellence in institutions, the matter may stand on a completely different footing.

    Striking a balance

    • The court explains how to strike a “balance” between the two objectives of excellence in education and the preservation of the minorities’ right to run their educational institutions.
    • For this, the court broadly divides education into two categories – secular education and education “directly aimed at or dealing with preservation and protection of the heritage, culture, script and special characteristics of a religious or a linguistic minority.”
    • When it comes to the latter, the court advocated “maximum latitude” to be given to the management to appoint teachers.
    • The court reasons that only “teachers who believe in the religious ideology or in the special characteristics of the concerned minority would alone be able to imbibe in the students admitted in such educational institutions, what the minorities would like to preserve, profess and propagate.”
    • However, minority institutions where the curriculum was “purely secular”, the intent must be to impart education availing the best possible teachers.

  • A case for including Tulu in the Eighth Schedule

    According to the 2001 Census, India has 30 languages that are spoken by more than a million people each. Additionally, it has 122 languages that are spoken by at least 10,000 people each. It also has 1,599 languages, most of which are dialects. Tulu is one such language with considerable number of speakers.

    Speakers of Tulu

    • Tulu is a Dravidian language whose speakers are concentrated in two coastal districts of Karnataka and in Kasaragod district of Kerala.
    • Kasaragod district is called ‘Sapta bhasha Samgama Bhumi (the confluence of seven languages)’, and Tulu is among the seven.
    • The Census reports 18,46,427 native speakers of Tulu in India.
    • The Tulu-speaking people are larger in number than speakers of Manipuri and Sanskrit, which have the Eighth Schedule status.

    Schedule VIII languages

    • Among the legion of languages in India, the Constitution has 22 languages. They are protected in Schedule VIII of the Constitution.
    • But many languages that are kept out of this favoured position are in some ways more deserving to be included in the Eighth Schedule.
    • For example, Sanskrit, an Eighth Schedule language, has only 24,821 speakers (2011 Census).
    • Manipuri, another scheduled language, has only 17,61,079 speakers. However, many unscheduled languages have a sizeable number of speakers.

    Why does Tulu deserve a place in the Schedule?

    • At present, Tulu is not an official language in India or any other country. Efforts are being made to include Tulu in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution.
    • If included in the Eighth Schedule, Tulu would get recognition from the Sahitya Akademi. Tulu books would be translated into other recognised Indian languages.
    • The Yuelu Proclamation, made by the UNESCO at Changsha, The People’s Republic of China, in 2018 calls for protection and promotion of linguistic diversity.

    Conclusion 

    • India must accommodate this plethora of languages in its cultural discourse and administrative apparatus.
    • Article 29 of the Constitution provides that a section of citizens having a distinct language, script or culture have the right to conserve the same.
    • Placing of all the deserving languages on equal footing will promote social inclusion and national solidarity. It will reduce the inequalities within the country to a great extent.

  • [op-ed snap]Secularism’s Brexit moment

     

    Context

    In India, the debate on the issue of secularism needs to be based on a more principled and practical basis.

    Change in public discourse

    • Popular skepticism of secularism has been growing these days.
    • Secularism is being increasingly discounted not only by the hardliners but also by the moderate middle.
    • It is no longer taboo to raise questions that were formerly the preserve of the fringe.
    • Today, democracy is taken for granted by all the Indians. No one raises questions over its utility.
    • Secularism need to be elevated to the same level as is the democracy today, where no one raises the question on its utility.

    What are the issues with the defenders of secularism?

    • Rather than make case for secularism, its champions indulge in name-calling and citing the example from the past to tarnish and shut down critics.
    • They also cite the Constitution in their support-without realising that it is this very document’s secular thrust that has became suspect.
    • They also assume the obvious correctness of their cosmopolitan worldview.

    What changes need to be made?

    • They must make a case for secularism anew-principled and practical.
    • On principled basis-individual equality, freedom of conscience and personal habits.
    • On a practical basis-no country can flourish by degrading their minority.
    • They must stress the India’s plurality and “live and let live” culture, syncretic traditions and long history of respect and accommodation of differences.
    • They also need to show some humility.
    • They also have to show openness to fair-minded criticism.

    Conclusion

    These suggestions are urgently needed to be followed by those arguing in the defence of secularism otherwise there is a very real possibility of a large section of a society losing faith in secularism. In this anxious hours India needs to engage in open and self-critical debate-rather than polarising polemic.

     

     

     

  • [op-ed snap] When defection is a mere detour for an MLA

    Context

    In the recently concluded by-election in Karnataka, most of the disqualified MLA’s were re-elected. This set of the event lay down a well-structured framework to sidestep the law, it even set a dangerous precedent for neutralising the consequences of the Anti-Defection Law altogether.

    Historical background

    • Defection is not new to the Indian political landscape.
    • An independent MLA from Haryana had switched parties three times in two weeks in 1967.
    • The recurrence of this phenomenon led to the 1985 Anti-Defection Law.

    Provisions of the law

    • The law defined three grounds for disqualification-Giving up party membership, violation of whip, and abstaining from voting.
    • Before the amendment, the law allowed for a “split” in the party if at least one-third of the MLAs defect.
    • 91st Constitutional Amendment in 2003 deleted the provision allowing split.
    • Resignation is not the condition for disqualification.
    • This loophole was exploited by the MLAs in Karnataka while they resigned.
    • The resignation was not accepted by the speaker of the house and declared the MLAs disqualified.
    • Law puts no time constraint on the speaker to decide on the resignation of MLAs.

    Speaker as a tribunal under law

    • The law originally protected the Speaker’s decision from judicial review.
    • This safeguard was struck down in Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu and Others (1992).
    • In this case, the SC upheld the Speaker’s discretionary power, it underscored that the Speaker functioned as a tribunal under the law.
    • This made the Speaker’s decision subject to judicial review.
    • The same was said in Shrimanth Balasaheb Patel & Others v. Speaker Karnataka Legislative Assembly & Others (2019).

     

    Neutral role of the SC

    • The SC struck down ban on Karnataka disqualified MLAs from contesting election till 2023.
    • This effectively removed the only possible permanent solution to the problem.

     

    Way forward

    The minimum period limit of six years is needed to ensure that the defectors are not allowed to enter the election fray for at least one election cycle which is five years.

  • Legislative Council in States: Issues & Way Forward

  • Women empowerment issues – Jobs,Reservation and education

  • Police Reforms – SC directives, NPC, other committees reports

  • Internal Security Trends and Incidents

  • Judicial Reforms