I have heard many times this. Mother tongue is the best medium for a child's education. I don't have any shades of doubt about this. However, in the name of promoting a native language, the language fanatics take it too far to denigrate other languages including English and eventually end up forcing this down the throat of some one to compulsorily hold onto one's native tongue.
I have seen this with eminent poets and writers in at least the few Indian languages I have been exposed to like Tamil, Kannada, Malayalam.
These writers and poets have ulterior motive I feel when they insist on native languages. It is also understandable. As most of them have their daily bread and butter (now it is towards Merc and villas) pinned down on people reading and writing in these languages. Obviously if their market share goes down with people taking to English or others because that gives them the opportunities, then how do they survive? I may be criticised for this view but I would like to point out that their view of the world is also quite narrow and the fact that most of them have rapport with the ruling politicians, who then blindly insist that Tamilnadu for Tamils and Kannada nadu for Kannadigas or Kerala nadu for malayalees.
I feel this kind of soft insistence finally leads to a divided society. Because general public does not have the time to think deeply and they rever these local heroes, their words become so important. When you keep dividing the people, one day you may have to face the division within your own community and family between you and your son and daughter.
A divisive mind does not foster an environment of empathy and love for fellow beings. Instead it frowns upon the existence of others as being a threat to you. I don't say that you speak English and worship it dropping whatever your mother tongue is. I am only telling you to clearly identify these people who create divisions in the society in the name of a language because they have certain gains to make. I also say that there are really good guys out there in the literary circles who are with a broad mind and who are well read and are very clear in their head about larger goals beyond the constraints of a language.
If you enjoy learning a language do it. But not under any one's compulsions. It should be done out of your own will. Whenever you see a trend where you suspect the motive is to divide people, never support it, for it will backfire on you one day.
Ignore people creating divisions and look out for such people in every Indian state.
Try to learn whatever you feel is good for you. If you enjoy the rich literature of a language enjoy it. But don't take it beyond that. After lot of time thinking about what is in a language, I feel the native language or mother tongue sort of becomes the first and easiest language for you as it is imbibed in you when you had nothing else in your head. But remember that blindly sticking to it because you find it easy and you can express yourself means you are not exploring the richness of thoughts in some other language. That also does not mean that you waste your life learning all possible languages. The rule of thumb I have is, if I find something interesting, I don't mind learning it, no matter how hard it is. Irrespective of which language a thought was born, we should be able to have a look at it.
People fear that if they stop speaking their mother tongue, then it will die and with it the whole race can extinguish. Every language ultimately gets its due share I believe. Sanskrit died in the spoken world because it probably was not a easy language to use and speak by majority. However, the richness of sanskrit in terms of literature and the vedas or upanishads have not died. It is living and have been migrated into various other languages of the world. Now as long as the essence of the thoughts that originated in the days of vedas has survived, it is only a desirable thing that the language that was used to convey such refined thoughts also survive. But if it did not, then what can you do about it? You cannot force people to learn and speak it. It is not possible.
English as a language has taken within it a lot of others and especially the modern day aspects. It never rested with the Shakespearean literature. It has evolved and adapted because the people of that language transcended beyond it and tried to understand other cultures. The language also expanded with it. This shows that the need to be 'listening' to others and expanding on one's own language to incorporate new thoughts will go a long way in surviving a language.
Again this does not mean, literally translate everything in English to native language. This is what the French do and probably others like Japanese. I feel the English though they had conquered most countries in the world, had some eye for detail into each culture, documented, contributed and enabled the exposure of the gems in those languages to other cultures because they were being the connecting points by virtue of their conquests. A job probably being done by internet to some extent and I feel it will only increase as internet expands to include more of native languages and by improvements in language translators. This could be a very subtle thing that happened, because the English are not emotionally tied to their language unlike Indians are.
If you drop the emotional tag on the language and start using it to expand your and other's knowledge with it, language is a very powerful tool that can change the history of man's existence. However, with emotion, it leads to fanning of egos and aggression on other cultures who don't speak yours.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Conversations in modern office environments
I happen to stumble across different types of people in my long career working in software companies. I always had indirectly looked at the ways people converse with others. Being good at communication means different things to different people. I give my observations on this below.
I have seen most of the Indian engineers whom I have worked with are generally far less communicative than their western counterparts. One hindrance is still English being a non-native language. But language is only one aspect. There are several aspects to relaying your thoughts in a crisp and clean way so that the other person exactly gets your intentions.
Beyond the structure and semantics of what languages offer, there is the subject of your communication. You don't need to be flowery on your choice of words. Just getting the point across with the right level of emotion needed is an art.
Some times, I have tried to sound angry when things don't seem to go the right way in projects. But the words that I choose to convey will still convey the right things. I feel it is important to reign in your emotions and be able to express it in a tone that does not spoil what you would have ultimately wanted to convey.
Imagine this, when some one bangs your car on the road, will you still be able to get the facts across that the other person did the wrong (I am talking about Indian roads..). ?
I doubt you will be able to show controlled emotion and choice of words here. I am obviously contradicting myself between the last bunch of statements I make.
I guess the situation, people etc. makes this difference. In office, surrounded by colleagues, a mistake done by some one can still be dealt in a way with the right choice of words. If there are repeated occurrences, then office procedures are always there to take the action. So, here it is still valid.
However, some one unknown on the road who inflicts a injury to you or to your asset, you still need to react what you feel absolutely. Does not mean you can be violent in your words or deeds still. Remember again your long innings of 80+ years and this is just a passing thing. So, if you do that long shot thinking, this is not worth spending all your energy and going bonkers over it. So be cool always, as much as possible.
Coming back to conversations, I used to ask my fellow engineers whom I am guiding on design or programming to spell out what they understood. I have seen some repeat like a parrot without thinking. Very few get a summary understanding of a long conversation. It is easy to isolate the people who understood from who have not. Nowadays this is important with engineering degrees being a commodity churned out with the net result of a person standing in front of you with absolutely no clue of what he is supposed to know.
Many books say a good conversation is always levelled. With both the parties listening and conversing in equal measures. But I feel it need not be. Many a time, I have found that simply listening fully and being able to spend all your attention to understand the fellow being, even if you have your opinion, may often find that what the other person is talking exactly reflects your opinion. So no need to waste time enforcing it. If one of the parties take this stand, it saves time and makes your life easy.
However, I find one exception to the above rule. When the other person whom you are talking to is mostly on a subject that is very light, more for entertainment purposes or a casual conversation without a goal to achieve like in a official environment, it is better to follow the rule of maintaining a equal level. Allow them to talk and at the same time find your points through or try to meet your points by interjections, agreeing nods and so on.
The biggest problem I see in most offices are the time spent in making each other known of what I am doing. This has become such a pain that it affects all the time you have to work on your stuff. It is crazy many a time that people come to meetings with less preparations and with a view of just sucking all what some one else's has done putting in hard work and on top of it question them without sufficient thinking just to highlight their knowledge of the subject. These are dangerous as it will set a very bad outlook on your other colleague who has painstakingly prepared to be there. I see this especially when there are the so-called experienced managers who does absolutely nothing....yes I mean it and they simply by the sheer weight of their mostly useless experience tend to absolutely hijack a junior's conversation without understanding what he or she is trying to come out with and instead start concluding on what needs to be done.
Many MNCs have many such folks who have absolutely no clue on what they are there for. But comfortably positioned to execute the orders of their higher ups with no sense of understanding why such a thing is needed and how it really affects the business. This is how the growth of a company shields inefficiencies and over time there are very few who steers the company with so many hanging by the side and the whole thing navigates towards doom.
Every ones position, work and achievements should be under constant scrutiny, not by another person, but by themselves. What is the value Iam adding ? How does it help the business? How am I helpful in my role to my fellow workers? Honestly, I have always had these questions with partially convincing answers most of the time I had spent life in MNCs.
Big companies should still work like a large assemblage of start-ups I feel. This way the purpose will be very clear. However, I do think, biggies don't have great innovations and instead they bask in the glory of what they have innovated in the past. This means the work is pretty much mundane and why put pressure on things which can be achieved with less pressure and mediocre minds?
See Iam contradicting my own theories here again...
thats what should be a healthy conversation in my opinion again!
I have seen most of the Indian engineers whom I have worked with are generally far less communicative than their western counterparts. One hindrance is still English being a non-native language. But language is only one aspect. There are several aspects to relaying your thoughts in a crisp and clean way so that the other person exactly gets your intentions.
Beyond the structure and semantics of what languages offer, there is the subject of your communication. You don't need to be flowery on your choice of words. Just getting the point across with the right level of emotion needed is an art.
Some times, I have tried to sound angry when things don't seem to go the right way in projects. But the words that I choose to convey will still convey the right things. I feel it is important to reign in your emotions and be able to express it in a tone that does not spoil what you would have ultimately wanted to convey.
Imagine this, when some one bangs your car on the road, will you still be able to get the facts across that the other person did the wrong (I am talking about Indian roads..). ?
I doubt you will be able to show controlled emotion and choice of words here. I am obviously contradicting myself between the last bunch of statements I make.
I guess the situation, people etc. makes this difference. In office, surrounded by colleagues, a mistake done by some one can still be dealt in a way with the right choice of words. If there are repeated occurrences, then office procedures are always there to take the action. So, here it is still valid.
However, some one unknown on the road who inflicts a injury to you or to your asset, you still need to react what you feel absolutely. Does not mean you can be violent in your words or deeds still. Remember again your long innings of 80+ years and this is just a passing thing. So, if you do that long shot thinking, this is not worth spending all your energy and going bonkers over it. So be cool always, as much as possible.
Coming back to conversations, I used to ask my fellow engineers whom I am guiding on design or programming to spell out what they understood. I have seen some repeat like a parrot without thinking. Very few get a summary understanding of a long conversation. It is easy to isolate the people who understood from who have not. Nowadays this is important with engineering degrees being a commodity churned out with the net result of a person standing in front of you with absolutely no clue of what he is supposed to know.
Many books say a good conversation is always levelled. With both the parties listening and conversing in equal measures. But I feel it need not be. Many a time, I have found that simply listening fully and being able to spend all your attention to understand the fellow being, even if you have your opinion, may often find that what the other person is talking exactly reflects your opinion. So no need to waste time enforcing it. If one of the parties take this stand, it saves time and makes your life easy.
However, I find one exception to the above rule. When the other person whom you are talking to is mostly on a subject that is very light, more for entertainment purposes or a casual conversation without a goal to achieve like in a official environment, it is better to follow the rule of maintaining a equal level. Allow them to talk and at the same time find your points through or try to meet your points by interjections, agreeing nods and so on.
The biggest problem I see in most offices are the time spent in making each other known of what I am doing. This has become such a pain that it affects all the time you have to work on your stuff. It is crazy many a time that people come to meetings with less preparations and with a view of just sucking all what some one else's has done putting in hard work and on top of it question them without sufficient thinking just to highlight their knowledge of the subject. These are dangerous as it will set a very bad outlook on your other colleague who has painstakingly prepared to be there. I see this especially when there are the so-called experienced managers who does absolutely nothing....yes I mean it and they simply by the sheer weight of their mostly useless experience tend to absolutely hijack a junior's conversation without understanding what he or she is trying to come out with and instead start concluding on what needs to be done.
Many MNCs have many such folks who have absolutely no clue on what they are there for. But comfortably positioned to execute the orders of their higher ups with no sense of understanding why such a thing is needed and how it really affects the business. This is how the growth of a company shields inefficiencies and over time there are very few who steers the company with so many hanging by the side and the whole thing navigates towards doom.
Every ones position, work and achievements should be under constant scrutiny, not by another person, but by themselves. What is the value Iam adding ? How does it help the business? How am I helpful in my role to my fellow workers? Honestly, I have always had these questions with partially convincing answers most of the time I had spent life in MNCs.
Big companies should still work like a large assemblage of start-ups I feel. This way the purpose will be very clear. However, I do think, biggies don't have great innovations and instead they bask in the glory of what they have innovated in the past. This means the work is pretty much mundane and why put pressure on things which can be achieved with less pressure and mediocre minds?
See Iam contradicting my own theories here again...
thats what should be a healthy conversation in my opinion again!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)