The Killing of the Mother Tongue and the Destruction of Development in Iran

Mohsen Renani, Ph.D.

Mohsen Renani, Professor of Economics at the University of Isfahan and Development Researcher Message to the Second Conference on Educational Justice Development – 20 December 2016

For 110 years, since the Constitutional Revolution, we have begun the zero phase of establishing a modern state and entering our society into the modern world. However, the government in Iran – both before and after the Islamic Revolution – is still far from realizing a modern state, and our society is still in the confusion of a transitional period. We have made some progress, but we are still far from our ideal point. Neither our government now reflects the dominant features of a modern state, nor does our society fully embody the essence of a modern society.

Unfortunately, in this period, when we still don't know who we want to be or what we want to become, we have also made mistakes in our development planning. The mistake is that even if we had done nothing, we would likely have followed the same path. But during this time, in the name of development planning, we have nearly depleted and wasted our natural resources, including mines, oil, water, and forests; yet we are still stuck in a pre-development stage. In a word, we are still in the zero phase of development, while our resources are running out.

We have tried every path we thought would lead us to development. We developed the country's roads, laid railroads, brought electricity, built numerous dams, introduced modern education, expanded universities to rural areas, brought in assembly-line industries, emphasized export substitution, encouraged and supported domestic industries, practiced statism, then moved to privatization, intervened in prices, implemented rationing, provided subsidies, and later embraced widespread deregulation. We encouraged exports, limited imports, and moved back toward a free market economy. But no matter what we did, nothing changed, and only our resources were further destroyed and wasted.

Where did we go wrong? We do not know who or what group or institution is to blame, but the result is that we have failed to nurture capable individuals who can drive the development process forward in this country. For all these years, we have faced a serious shortage of skilled human resources, even though we have had the highest student enrollment rates in the world. We thought that if we had a large number of universities, the issue of human resources would be solved, so we embarked on the reckless expansion of our universities. Just as seventy years ago, we established a modern educational system everywhere, believing that simply taking children out of traditional schools, having them sit at desks, and using uniform textbooks would be enough to nurture modern, capable individuals for development, today we still manage our schools in the same manner. Throughout this time, our mistake has been that we focused on developing students' memory, not their character. Seventy years ago, we mechanically expanded a memory-based educational system, while capable and creative individuals for development are only nurtured through a relationship-based educational system. During this period, we ended up producing a large number of people with high intellectual abilities but very low social and communicative skills.

We took this educational system from the West and merely adapted it here. Although the West realized the error of this approach two decades ago and began transforming its educational system for children, this memory-based system had worked in the West. This was because, prior to that, two centuries of intellectual transformation in the West had already transformed the thinking and behavior of Western families, providing the necessary foundation for nurturing children with strong communicative abilities and well-developed personalities. Therefore, although the school system was memory and knowledge-centered, it did not harm the children's personalities. We took the same path, but forgot that in Iran, the family had not undergone two centuries of intellectual transformation and therefore did not plant the seeds of developmental abilities in the minds and languages of children. So, there was no hope for the family, and everything had to be done in school. Unfortunately, our primary schools turned into factories that mechanically produced literate individuals with strong memories but underdeveloped personalities. What was overlooked for seventy years was the development of the characters of the children we expected would later have the ability to create development, while we had not provided them with the tools for this development in their childhood.

But this was not our only major mistake. We made another error: the exclusion of half the country's population from active and timely participation in the development process. Based on a completely erroneous and racist policy, no official statistics on the ethnic and linguistic groups in our country have been gathered or published. However, various estimates suggest that ethnic minorities who speak languages other than Persian make up between 42% to 49% of Iran's population. Over the past seventy years, we have forced the children of nearly half of the country's population, those from non-Persian ethnic groups, to learn Persian from the first grade of elementary school and to be taught in Persian. The zero phase of development in any country takes place during early childhood, in preschool and primary education. Whatever we want for the future of our country must be planted during these early years. By imposing Persian language education on children whose mother tongue is not Persian, we have forced them into a developmental halt during the most sensitive years of their lives. The fact that 67% of the students failing in the first and second grades of elementary school come from the nine bilingual provinces of the country highlights this issue. Iranian children who do not speak Persian as their mother tongue only manage to learn it after losing their early childhood years, the most critical period for developing the characteristics needed later for effective and sustained participation in the process of development.

We failed to realize that the mother tongue is not just a means of communication, but the language of affection, feeling, and the individual's life. The mother tongue is the inner language of individuals, and the process of thinking first occurs in the individual's inner language before being translated into their spoken language. Studies have shown that bilingual individuals, when they have mastered their mother tongue, are better at processing emotional information and understanding meanings. In reality, by not teaching the mother tongue and imposing Persian on children whose mother tongue is not Persian, we halt their internal language and thought development at an early age, forcing them to struggle with psychological pressure and delays before they can think and speak in the imposed new language. However, what has been lost in the process is the opportunity to nurture their developmental and existential dimensions, which shape their communicative and creative capabilities for development.

The important point is that language is a catalytic phenomenon or system. It is a phenomenon that is naturally and unconsciously created and evolved by humans, reaching a self-organizing order. In catalytic phenomena, we first learn to use and apply them, and then analyze and identify their components. If language is a catalytic phenomenon, we must first use it and maximize our ability to use it, and only then should we move on to learning and analyzing it. When we remove a child from their mother tongue environment and force them into learning Persian, they have not yet reached the point of maximum language development in their mother tongue. That is, the emotional and affective aspects that should have fully developed through their mother tongue are not completed, and as a result, the development of their speaking ability in the mother tongue is halted. Therefore, their inner language, which is also the language of their thinking, does not reach its full potential. This child then must endure great hardships to first learn Persian, and later develop their ability to think in Persian. This is the injustice we have been inflicting on non-Persian-speaking ethnic children for seventy years, placing them at a disadvantage in social and economic competition with Persian speakers.

In fact, by imposing Persian language education, we slow down or halt the mental and personal development of nearly half of our country's population for several years, and destroy their opportunities to benefit Persian-speaking children. As a result, the opportunities for general participation in the development process are reduced in provinces with non-Persian-speaking populations. Perhaps part of the gap and imbalance in development between central and border provinces is due to this issue. Even though appropriate budgets have been allocated for the development of some underdeveloped provinces in the past, these provinces remain underdeveloped. In reality, by imposing Persian on children in bilingual provinces, we create a several-year delay in the development of their personality and abilities, and this becomes the beginning of an unequal distribution of opportunities between resources. In addition to all the other political, social, and cultural injustices, this form of educational injustice is a destructive injustice that we have quietly imposed on non-Persian-speaking ethnic groups over the past seventy years.

The mother tongue is like native architecture. Is it justifiable to demolish all rural houses or indigenous buildings in different regions and historical cities of the country simply because their architecture is not like the architecture of Tehran? If not, then why are we doing this to the mother tongues of ethnic groups, which are part of the cultural heritage and wealth of any society? The killing of a mother tongue is no different from genocide and racism. A society that imposes one language over all mother tongues is a racist society that seeks to impose one language, which it deems superior, over the others. It doesn’t matter whether you seek to elevate one race over others, one language, one religion, or one ideology—it all amounts to a form of racism.

What a contradiction it is that, on the one hand, we spend significant resources preserving historical writings and artifacts, and on the other hand, we spend large amounts of resources to restrict and weaken the living mother tongue of non-Persian-speaking ethnic groups. The destruction of language leads to the destruction of culture, and the destruction of culture leads to the destruction of identity. Once identity is destroyed, hatred and violence will take its place. The mother tongue is a tool for expanding social capital, and destroying it means destroying social capital. We have mistakenly thought that by Persianizing everything in non-Persian-speaking provinces, we are promoting social cohesion. But this is not the case. A forced language creates an internal resistance in the learner and prepares them to take revenge on the group that imposed it on them when the time is right.

In general, the current educational system in Iran, which begins with the first grade of school and neglects the development of the child's existential dimensions at a time when their human and developmental potential should be forming, diverts all their energy and capacity into learning things they don’t currently need, depleting and destroying their potential. After a twelve-year educational process, we end up with young people filled with scientific knowledge but lacking the communication skills necessary for a rich and satisfying human life. Unfortunately, this destructive process is much more severe for the children of non-Persian-speaking ethnic groups. These children face three major sources of pressure and tension at the exact time when the last opportunity for their existential, personal, and behavioral development occurs: first, the stress of entering school and becoming part of the larger society outside the family; second, the stress of learning a non-native language (Persian) that they have no prior experience with; and third, the stress of entering formal scientific education. In other words, the child must enter society, learn a non-native language (Persian), and acquire knowledge all at once. Do we understand the calamity we are bringing upon the children of our country and the damage we are doing to their existential, biological, and social capacities with this approach?

The cessation of the use of the mother tongue means severing the emotional connection between the child and their environment, limiting their ability to express their emotions and feelings, and halting the developmental process of their understanding and perceptions. Just as the physical sterilization of humans is unethical, the cessation or failure to teach a child their mother tongue and imposing another language on them is a form of halting or sterilizing their personality, and it is unethical. Forcing a child to learn a language other than their mother tongue breaks the bond between the mother and child in the realm of education, effectively marginalizing the mother in the developmental process of the child’s concept formation and perception.

It takes a long time, a great deal of lost opportunity, and immense psychological and emotional costs for these innocent children to regain their sense of self and bring their developmental process of concept formation and understanding to a productive stage. Language is the tool for the evolution of our understanding. Linguistic disconnection creates a disruption in the developmental process of children’s thinking, and it is a violation of their human rights. In my view, over the past seventy years, we have imposed linguistic despotism on ethnic minorities far more than we have imposed political despotism, and this linguistic tyranny is far more soul-crushing and devastating.

To truly shape the development process across all regions of the country, we have no choice but to respect the natural way of life of all Iranian ethnic groups and grant official status to their languages. There is certainly benefit in linguistic diversity, as exemplified by Switzerland, where three languages are officially recognized, or South Africa, which has eleven official languages.

It may be argued that according to the Constitution, Persian is the only official language, and any changes in this regard would require amending the Constitution. However, the Constitution’s Article 15 allows the teaching of local and ethnic language literature in schools. We just need to decide to seize this opportunity and make it a reality.

The organizers of the "Second Conference on Educational Justice Development" have suggested in their manifesto that national policymakers aim for 90% preschool coverage in bilingual provinces by 2021. While this is a good idea, considering the government’s financial problems, which are likely to intensify in the future, the feasibility of this goal is very low. It is a desirable and necessary goal but unattainable. Providing inclusive preschool services that encompass all demographic sectors of ethnic communities requires extensive organization and significant funding, or very broad private sector participation, which seems unlikely.

If the Islamic Republic government is committed to development goals, it should begin reforms in primary education starting next year. To this end, we can utilize the existing educational capacities in the country. Currently, all school-age children have access to primary education. The most important step we must take is to decide to shift the approach of primary education from an education-centered paradigm to a development-centered paradigm. We must accept that the primary school years are years of development, and education in this period should become a secondary issue. Although such a transformation cannot be achieved in one year, if the Ministry of Education accepts the principle of this transformation, it can implement this process over six years, for example, by changing one grade each year from education-centered to development-centered. Achieving this transformation nationwide and simultaneously may be difficult and costly, so it could start in a few bilingual provinces and gradually expand to other bilingual provinces, and eventually across the country.

The shift in the primary education system from an education-centered to a development-centered approach will create the opportunity in bilingual provinces to have programs for the personal development and social capabilities of children in these areas conducted in their mother tongue. It might be suitable in bilingual provinces to focus on developing children’s biological and personal abilities and enhancing their communication and social skills in the first three years of primary school through the use of their mother tongue. During this period, they could also learn the culture and literature of their mother tongue, so that they can approach the full flourishing of their inner language and thinking. Then, from the fourth year, Persian language education can begin gradually, so that by the end of sixth grade, these children will have learned to read and write in Persian, and upon entering high school, they will be able to fully receive their scientific education in Persian.

For me, one of the key measures of a government’s commitment to development is how they treat minorities and prisoners. It is in these two areas that a person’s character, dignity, and human rights are exposed, defenseless, before the authority and legal power of the majority, making them vulnerable to violation and oppression. Unfortunately, in the past three decades, our government has not had a good record in these two areas. We do not have much time left. Now is the time to put an end to this injustice while there is still an opportunity.

Iran is a land of a rainbow of cultures, ethnicities, languages, and religions. Removing any color from this rainbow is a step towards the destruction of the rainbow itself. Our rainbow will only endure and remain vibrant through the collaboration and presence of all these colors. Therefore, long live the colors, long live our Iranian rainbow.

---

Link to the original text in Farsi