SUFFICIENTLY ACQUAINTED

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09415777229, 094055338

E-mail- [e-mail];[e-mail]

 

 

SUFFICIENTLY ACQUAINTED

 

 

 The very first question on which our Assembly Speakers may have to give their ruling will be what, in their opinion, is the meaning of “sufficient acquaintance” with English. For one of the most objectionable Sections of the Government of India Act, 1935, is Section 85, which reads: “All proceedings in the Legislature of a Province shall be conducted in the English language. Provided that the rules of procedure of the chamber or chambers, and the rules, if any, with respect to joint sittings, shall provide for enabling persons unacquainted, or not sufficiently acquainted, with the English language, to use another language.” The first part of the Section is eloquently emphatic of the fact that the Act was meant not for the millions unacquainted with the English language but for the very few acquainted with it. The insult to the millions is so obvious. The permissive proviso offers a kind of healing balm to the injury of the insult. In an Act framed by our own people the operative part of the Section would make the use of the language of the province or Hindi-Hindustani obligatory and the permissive proviso would be for the benefit of the unfortunate ones who might not know either the language of the province or the nation, and therefore must use “another language”. That, of course, is by way of comment on the Section.

Those, however, who occupy the Speaker’s chair, cannot comment on the Section, they will have to interpret it for the members. A commentator of the Act has already anticipated a difficulty and says: “This is a facility (viz., the one offered by the proviso) not open to those who, knowing English, would, as a matter of national self-respect, insist upon using the vernacular language.” We shall not quarrel with the commentator’s own ignorance, here, of the correct use of the English language, or of the implications of “national self-respect”. (Otherwise he would not have used the objectionable word “vernacular” and would have used the words “national language” or “the language of the province”). But apart from the question of “national self-respect” which is bound to be foreign to an Act, on the face of it so disrespectful, any commentator ought to address himself to the meaning of the words “sufficiently acquainted”. Does “sufficient knowledge” mean a mere nodding acquaintance or even a working knowledge? Whilst the Speaker may not be guided by “national self-respect” and reverse the disrespectful spirit of the Acts he may certainly put a liberal interpretation on the proviso. “Sufficient” according to the Oxford Dictionary means “adequate, enough”; also “Competent, of adequate ability or resources”; and “adequate” means “proportionate to the requirements” of the case. Now what are the requirements here? Two, viz., that the member of the legislature may give adequate expression to all that he is filled with; and that the rest of the members understand all that he has to say. As regards the first of these requirements, does an ordinary knowledge of English enable one to express one’s thoughts adequately? As I write this, I have before my mind’s eye a vivid picture of a newly elected M. L. A. who had occasion to travel with Gandhiji some time ago.

The M. L. A., as we found afterwards, had a double University degree, but lacked, if I may say without offence, the ability to express her thought either fully or correctly. She was exceptionally refined and cultured but she lacked this gift. She not only could not express herself fully or correctly, she failed to follow Gandhiji fully or correctly. Not knowing Section 85 of the Act, I said to me, “Thank God she need not speak in the Assembly in English.” But knowing the Section, I now ask, must she speak in English, because she is a double graduate and presumed to know English? I should think not. It should be open to our M. L. A.s to declare that it is not possible for them to express themselves adequately in English, or at any rate as well in English as they could in their own mother tongue. And this lady, in spite of her double degree, seemed to me to possess a right truthfully to make such a declaration. I am sure that there are many members who are in the same case as this sister. Take now the second and equally important requirement of the case, viz., that the rest of the members should understand all that a member says. In Bombay, I am told; no less than twenty-two of the members of the Assembly do not know English at all. Are they to sit with their ears closed when a brother member addresses them in choice or indifferent English? The least they are entitled to, I think, is that whenever a member regarding himself as “sufficiently acquainted” with English speaks in English, he must also for the benefit of the non-English-knowing members explain the speech in the language of the province. These two requirements of the case seem to me so obvious that any Speaker seeking to put a correct, not to say liberal, interpretation on the proviso is bound to have due regard to them.