Editorial
On 6th April, 2010, Dzongkha Development Commission (DDC) concluded a three-days Dzongkha Conference in Paro with the goal as “Bilingual Society”. Every nation constitutes multi-lingual societies. Bhutan is not at all will be the exceptional. Though it is a diminutive country with petite populace, it has multi-lingual inhabitants. It has three primary scripted languages in application – Dzongkha, English and Nepali. Beside these, there are bountiful additional parlances which have imperative significance in the communiqué in Bhutan like Sarchokpa, Khengpa, Brokpa and within Nepali, there are innumerous dialects. In a democratic country there always will be the anxiety of citizens what the government does in the developmental facets.
Dzongkha, which is the national language, is also the native language of only 25% people (see Kuensel editorial dated 9th November, 2009) of Ngalong community. Today, in diversified perspective, developmental activities to this language is being carried out. The current convention is one of the manifests of such activities. There is no trepidation that all Bhutanese under esteem the national language. It is also the verity that this language is in employ by the public with the standard of interpretation and inscription only by about 50%. The other 10 ancillary percent may cope in any-way consideration to it. It is also moderately apparent when Singye Wangdi, the Dzongkha language coordinator for the information and communications ministry states “We want the usage of Dzongkha to be equal to English” that in terms of usage, it is subsequent in position. It is also affirmed in the exposition by Gyalsten K Dorji to Kuensel dated 6th April that Dzongkha is used in bureaucracy only for transfer, appointment and in office orders.
English, though not an indigenous language of any Bhutanese, is in pinnacle precedence in conventional provisos. It has its dominance, right from the instant of British rule in India. Almost all the records, documentations, diplomacies, strategies and policies had been and are being done in this language. To be pragmatic, this language is widely articulated especially from school to the private and government offices. Being extensive language in articulation, it cannot be reinstated or snagged. It has more magnitude as an international language.
Nepali, the native language of all the inhabitants in the southern belt has good influence over the Eastern and Western Bhutanese community. Though government sacked its expansive and prosperous milieu by impeding education in this language in the schools and practices from the offices, it has still escalating oral influence throughout the nation. Realistically, it has good influence up to the royal family. Though , it is the native language of about 30% people, other 30% more employ this language either as a conduit or as the language of trade.
Beside the above three scripted languages, there are the languages like Sarchokpa, which is the native language of Eastern people, Khengpa, Brokpa, etc, which are also having noteworthy influence in the community.
From the conference report, avowal of DDC chief, Tandin Dorji, makes to comment when he said that Bhutanese citizens should be offered a bilingual choice when communicating with or within the government. Before out letting this media avowal he must know that the government is no more democratic if it imposes people to stick in the communication by giving only the bilingual option. Even the statement “By 2020, we want all Bhutanese to be bilingual” is more contentious. This does not resonate healthy for the high rank government officer to give media avowal in such a rigid language. Does he meant to sack all other languages by then? Is this avowal justifiable? Shouldn’t a government give magnitude as per the population constituent percentage for the usage of the languages? Is enforcement democratic? If it is the substance for the official documentation than it could be logical, but if it is the matter for the communication, then no part in the world, there is any restriction over the languages in communiqué.
Obviously, national language must be given priority for its usage in the nation. In the name of giving priority to a language, a government must not do any gaffe endangering the other. It is the probity of the government to give identical privileges to all the languages spoken and used in the nation, since they are also the linguistic heritage of the nation.
Editors