AN APPEAL FOR SUPPORT
BOOKS FOR YOU TO READ AND DOWNLOAD
REFERENCE MATERIAL
BACK ISSUES
Copyright © 2004
|
LANGUAGE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
State |
Per |
% |
|
|
Population |
Domestic |
Capita |
Majority |
|
|
Million |
Product |
SDP |
Lg |
|
|
|
Rs. |
|
Speakers |
|
|
|
Million |
Rs. |
|
Major States |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Andhra Pradesh |
66.51 |
316,240 |
4,755 |
84.8 |
2 |
Assam |
22.41 |
97,750 |
4,362 |
57.8 |
3 |
Bihar |
86.37 |
249,400 |
2,888 |
80.9 |
4 |
Gujarat |
41.31 |
261,330 |
6,326 |
91.5 |
5 |
Haryana |
16.46 |
126,440 |
7,682 |
91.0 |
6 |
Karnataka |
44.98 |
223,940 |
4,979 |
66.2 |
7 |
Kerala |
29.10 |
147,470 |
5,068 |
96.6 |
8 |
Madhya Pradesh |
66.18 |
316,020 |
4,775 |
85.6 |
9 |
Maharashtra |
78.94 |
593,250 |
7,515 |
73.3 |
10 |
Orissa |
31.66 |
99,010 |
3,127 |
82.8 |
11 |
Punjab |
20.28 |
164,520 |
8,112 |
92.2 |
12 |
Rajasthan |
44.01 |
214,590 |
4,876 |
89.6 |
13 |
Tamilnadu |
55.86 |
309,560 |
5,542 |
86.7 |
14 |
Uttar Pradesh |
139.11 |
551,220 |
3,962 |
90.1 |
15 |
West Bengal |
68.08 |
342,900 |
5,037 |
86.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Small States (Less than 10 Mn. Popn.) |
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Arunachal |
0.86 |
4,460 |
5,186 |
19.9 |
2 |
Goa |
1.27 |
10,860 |
8,551 |
51.5 |
3 |
Himachal |
5.17 |
27,950 |
5,406 |
88.9 |
4 |
J & K |
7.72 |
36,220 |
4,692 |
|
5 |
Manipur |
1.84 |
7,140 |
3,880 |
60.4 |
6 |
Meghalaya |
1.77 |
8,840 |
4,994 |
49.5 |
7 |
Mizoram |
0.69 |
3,360 |
4,870 |
75.1 |
8 |
Nagaland |
1.21 |
6,930 |
5,727 |
14.0 |
9 |
Sikkim |
0.41 |
2,140 |
5,220 |
63.1 |
10 |
Tripura |
2.76 |
11,930 |
4,322 |
68.9 |
11 |
And & Nicbr |
0.28 |
2680 |
9,571 |
23.1 |
12 |
Chandigarh |
0.64 |
|
|
61.1 |
13 |
D. Ngr Haveli |
0.14 |
|
|
55.0 |
14 |
Daman & Diu |
0.10 |
|
|
91.1 |
15 |
Delhi |
9.42 |
106,660 |
11,323 |
81.6 |
16 |
L.M.A Island |
0.52 |
|
|
84.5 |
17 |
Pondichery |
0.81 |
6,080 |
7,506 |
89.2 |
India 1991 : Lg. Diversity - Domestic Output Matrix
Figure - 1
From this scatter diagram, using Brassard (1985) explanation, it can be inferred that there is a possible positive correlation between the two variables. This inference is somewhat similar to Pool's work, where a trend is observed, but no concrete conclusions can be drawn. Indian development, during the period 1947~1995, was totally controlled by the government, whose decisions were influenced by political and socialistic philosophies. Nation's highest per capita SDP in the state of power, Delhi, is therefore no coincidence. Similarly low per capita SDP reported for Bihar can definitely be attributed to the poor law and order situation prevalent in the state.
This brings up the possibility of adding to the assumptions made by Pool (ibid.). In his model, it seems to be assumed that a nation is a homogenous entity, meaning that whole of the population is distributed uniformly within the countries from the point of view of language use. This assumption may not be correct in general, and definitely not so in the case of India where the states were formed primarily based on language.
In simplified words, it is logical to assume that if there is language diversity in all the regions of a country, the productivity could suffer all over the place. But if a country is made up of several regions, where there is a high level of language homogeneity in each region by itself, the sum of the high productivities of each region will still bring the nation ahead, despite the overall diversity of language.
The general situation in India is quite similar to the second case pointed above, where language diversity exists not only at national level but also at state level. But each region is quite homogenous from the point of view of language. However, in high technology industries, especially in major urban Indian cities, multilingual and multicultural people come together forming Multilingual Communication Fields as pointed out by Khokle (1997): "Traditional Trade Centers, places of pilgrimage, military campaigns, centres of feudal power, post-industrialisation production centres and public sector industrial centres have attracted migration from different parts of the country resulting in concentration of speakers of many different languages and dialects at one place. Such places have been labelled as multilingual communication fields (MCFs)."
Added to it is the fact that the basic language of the industry is English and hence the situation becomes even more complex.
CONCLUSION
The situation in Urban India cannot be changed to monolinguism just for the benefit of the Industry. At the same time the industry cannot survive if its work force cannot be advanced in knowledge and productivity. The language researchers could help the Indian industry in providing some insight into how to handle such language diversity and yet enhance the productivity and knowledge.
In general, language researchers have limited access, merely as external observers, to language use in the industry. Therefore inter and intra-disciplinary attempts should be made by language researchers and management gurus to find a solution to this problem. A viable practical model could be suggested which, when applied to situations of the present day multilingual Indian Industrial set ups, will result in very high levels of communication thus enhancing knowledge, productivity and development.
REFERENCES
Bayer, Jennifer 1989, "Language in Organisation and Institutions", in Bayer, J.M. (Ed.), Communication and Interaction Networks. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Brassard, Michael 1985, "The memory Jogger: A Pocket Guide of Tools for Continuous Improvement" (Lawrence, Mass: G.O.A.L)
Dua, H.R. 1989, "Language Use in Industry: Implications for Management", in Bayer, J.M. (Ed.), Communication and Interaction Networks. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Fishman, Joshua A. 1968, "Some Contrasts between linguistically homogeneous and linguistically heterogeneous polities", in Fishman, Joshua A. et al. (Eds.), Language Problems of Developing Nations. New York: Wiley.
Gupta, Alok 1989, "Participant-Observations of Language Use in an Industrial Setting", in Bayer, J.M. (Ed.), Communication and Interaction Networks. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
Khokle, V.S. 1997, "Multilingual Ethos: Built in Potential for Communication in Indian Context" in Koul, O.N. (Ed), South Asian Language Review, Vol. VII No. 2. New Delhi: Creative Books.
Pool, Jonathan 1972, "National Development and Language Diversity, in Fishman, Joshua. A. (Ed.), Advances in the Sociology of Languages. The Hague: Mouton.
Rajyashree, K.S. 1989, "Language Use in Communicational Interactions: Industries in the Slums", in Bayer, J.M. (Ed.), Communication and Interaction Networks. Mysore: Central Institute of Indian Languages.
http://indiabudget.nic.in/es99-2000/app9.1.pdf (Population of India) 10.10.2004
http://indiabudget.nic.in/es2001-02/chapt2002/tab17.pdf (Net SDP) 10.10.2004
http://www.ddindia.com/About+DD/About+DD+-+Commercial+Service/The+Three+main+Languages+in+every+State.htm (Three Main Languages in every State) 10.10.2004
Acknowledgement
I thank Dr. Jennifer Bayer, CIIL, Mysore, for the academic interaction and encouragement provided in writing this paper.
CLICK HERE FOR PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION.
LANGUAGE AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT IN INDIA | THE ROOTS OF LINGUISTIC REORGANIZATION OF INDIAN PROVINCES - DR. ANNIE BESANT AND HER HOME RULE MOVEMENT | MALAYALAM - HOW TO ARREST ITS WITHERING AWAY? | PANINI'S GRAMMAR - A FEW CHARACTERISTICS | LEARNING CLASSICAL STYLES OF LANGUAGES - A BRIEF REVIEW OF HOW BIBLICAL LANGUAGES WORK | RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VERBAL ABILITY AND STUDENTS' ACHIEVEMENT IN SECONDARY SCHOOL SOCIAL STUDIES IN SOUTHERN NIGERIA | COMBATING TERRORISM - CONFLICT AND POWER EQUATIONS - A Sociolinguistic Perspective - WHAT CAN INDIAN MYTHOLOGY AND PROVERBS OFFER? | HOME PAGE | CONTACT EDITOR
Send your articles
as an attachment
to your e-mail to
thirumalai@bethfel.org.