Fight for Right and Language

        Today I got the pleasure to hear vetean internationalist & columnist Dr. Ved Pratap Vedic and Professor Ajeet Jha,a history ideologue from Delhi University.Heard and read Vedic ji so much via electronic and print media,so this opportunity to hear him live was a bit exciting for me.Both came to support a movement by some UPSC aspirants against some flaws in recent notification by UPSC and demanding 'age relaxation and extra attempts' to be provided as syllabus,pattern and marking scheme has been changed.Both intellectuals along with Socialist Yogendra Yadav are supporting this movement vehemently.
          The programme started with speech of some scholars who are carrying this movement forward.They highlighted the technical aspects of their demand.Like,some commissions as Kothari Commission set up by UPSC itself  stated that on an average a selected candidate takes three attempts to get through when the same pattern of syllabus s/he follows. In 1979,also when the syllabus was changed three extra attempts were provided as it takes hardship of the candidate to get prepared for the same.Their main focus was to emphasis on the point that their demand is genuine.
          This demand was strongly supported by Prof Jha when he came to speak.He mainly raised two concerns.First,extreame weightage to  General Studies given and optionals marginalisation.As per him,our education system stresses for specialization after matriculation.As the basic qualification to appear into UPSC exam is graduation,how can UPSC expect the candidate to be allrounder?If General Studies is to be of high weightage then questions should be of the matriculation standard only.Second,an organisation can't ask to test everything at the time of examination.It should organise on-job training, as a serviceman better and practically learns after being a part of the system.Change is the reality of the world but a positive change can make wonders and negative could lead to discrimination and inequality.
         Now, it was the chance to hear the veteran to listen to whom I actually came.Vedic ji,as expected started in his own style attacking system with satires.He said,this demand is so small.Govt. should accept it asap as after all its implementation is going to support the govt itself,govt will have to pay for a less number of years to the cadidate.A more aged and experienced person will better be able to serve than a younger one,as experience is with him.So,using democratical institutions the movement should be carried forward and govt will accept it unscrupulously.But he then tried to take the attention towards the much larger issue. According to him,it is the inside conspiracy to steadily move out students other than those who are following English.He made several satires on English for is grammer,converting 'fish' into 'ghoti'.As 'f' of fish sounds as 'gh' of 'enough','i' of fish as 'o' of 'women' and 'sh' of  fish as 'ti' of 'nation'.Any great ideologue or 'vicharak' do not come from English language whether Plato(Greek),Sukhrat,Aristotal etc.No religious epic has been ever written in English whether Vedas(Sanskrit),Bible(hibroo),Quran(Arabi) etc.
           He said,a civil servant is the one who actually runs the govt.They make and break politician indeed as they know the system.An IAS,IFS,IPS etc should not get feared, a politician can't do anything of him,yes but vice versa is possible.
        I got to know many personal things about him like he is the person who named SAARC and is now planning to suggest govt to expand it covering 8 more nations(Myanmar,Mauritious,Iran,Kazakistan,Uzbekistan,Kirgistan,Turqmenistan and Tajikistan) and instead of govt only let teachers,doctors,media,scholaar,lawyer,professor,engineer, scientists etc interact each other and make it PEOPLE'S SAARC.Opportunities would be immense if this becomes reality.Even he insisted Karzai to come in the streamline and join this organization as eighth nation with the inclusion of Afghanistan.Another thing I got to know was that he knew many languages.Also he was the first scholar from JNU to submit his thesis in 'Hindi' and fought a legal battle for it.He has worked with several of our Prime Ministers.
     He said "I am not against any language even I knew many and many of my books are in english itself but i am against making it obligatory.If the barrier of English won't be there Indian people will make wonders.Yes,some services demands english,let some people follow it and be it optional to everyone but my concerns are to making it a compulsory one .It is one of the major reason behind the fact that only 4% out of the total who take admissions in primary school persue graduation."So,he emphasized to fight for the existence of hindi and against any sort of atrocity and do not let studies get affected in the process.
            Hearing both ideologues was a great experience.I agree with some of their comments and disagree with a few.General Studies should be of more weightage than optional despite of the fact of specilization stated by Prof. Jha.There is need of several education reforms,no doubt but this service demands a person having all round knowledge.It does not want specialist of a particular subject.Way of being a researcher ,professor are open for them.A person taking psychology, philosophy, any literature subject cracks a paper and when it comes down to administer in the service,he/she couldn't mark upto the expectation.Its the flaw to which UPSC has correted with new changes.I am not commenting on any specific subject over here,just talking about many general subjects which are of less significance in performing administration tasks. Another issue that CSAT inclusion and on job training,I agree that on job training is essential but inclusion of CSAT is also equally important as logical and reasoning abilities are natural in a person.They can be refined with passage of time,not produced.So,it must be a part of the examination and keeping same and some departmental problems in mind UPSC added this into the syllabus.But I agree that change should be like one that bring positive changes and what are 'positive changes' should be decided after thorough public,ideologue and policy makers combined discussions.At first,Ideologues should be made a part of the policy making process for a 'positive change'.
      I think "A language is mere is medium of expression, nothing else."If someone love/hate any language it is his/her right but one should not abhor a language to a level where it becomes a menace for the society. I strongly support VedicJi's remark that one should love and learn all languages and should not be against any but equally significant is that any language should not be made obligatory in such a way that it breaks the aspirations of the people affected.