As we get ready to conclude the first ELI theme on Multilingualism, let us take a step back and review the journey.

A number of people have contributed interesting blog pieces on different aspects of the topic. Saktibrata Sen’s piece demonstrates the permeability and fluidity of linguistic boundaries in many Indian contexts. If dialects are continuous and overlap with each other, then it becomes quite challenging and perhaps not very useful to discuss issues in terms of the child’s “first” and “second” languages in these contexts. Giridhar Rao and Shuchi Sinha each make compelling arguments for Mother Tongue (MT) education and English. Giridhar advocates an approach where the MT is the medium of instruction, and all other languages, including English are taught as subjects. Shuchi may not disagree with this suggestion, but approaches the issue from another perspective – that of power and choice. Who gets to determine for whom the language that their children “should” be educated in? Do the elite get to decide for the masses, the language of education for their children?

It should be noted that neither is Giridhar arguing for a position that denies English to the masses; nor, is Shuchi arguing that English should be used as the medium of instruction. They are simply laying out different sets of arguments that go up to making the whole of the multilingualism puzzle.

Nivedita Bedadur and Parthasarathi Misra each give very useful pedagogical suggestions for providing versions of multilingual education. Nivedita provides pedagogical arguments and methods for including the mother tongues of all children in the classroom; while Parthasarathi recommends simple approaches and strategies for teaching English in Indian contexts. Devaki rounds up the conversation with examples of strategies from the ground of multilingual education, alerting the reader to the importance of policy that supports the same.

It is true that we have barely scratched the surface of understanding the complexities of multilingual education. It seems clear that all the authors of the blog post advocate some version of multilingual pedagogy for Indian contexts. Not a single one is arguing for English-only or regional-language-only education. It seems reasonable to conclude that wherever possible, young children should be given access to mother tongue medium instruction; in addition to access to the dominant state language and English. These can be introduced orally initially, and written forms of these languages could be introduced gradually. Where it is not possible to make mother tongue the medium of instruction, every effort should be made to use learner-friendly strategies that welcome the child’s words and worlds into the classroom, as proposed by Nivedita.

We have not touched upon the issue of teacher education in these blog pieces. It goes without saying that teachers need robust training in understanding the rationale behind multilingual education; and a good repertoire of strategies to support the same. Finally, clear-sighted policy-making at different levels is critical and important. But, policy does not spring from a vacuum. It springs from conversations, dialogues, exchanges of ideas – modest conversations that seed ideas, and more grand conversations that harvest them. This blog discussion has been an example of the former – a modest exchange of ideas that keep seeding the domain. Perhaps, someday, we will live see the harvest…