Evaluation of Plan Schemes of the Department of Official Language

journal Rajbhasha Bharti) indicate that there is dissatisfaction with the
extent of usage.
But all this is only suggestive. It is surprising that little policy relevant
information is available regarding the extent of usage of Hindi over the years
and across regions and offices. It is difficult, for example, for an outsider
or even the policy-maker to know whether the extent of usage of Hindi has
increased between two years and, if so, to what extent. This is because the
coverage of the Annual Assessment Report differs year to year and the data
is not processed (i.e. added or percentages deduced) to yield information.
The precise meanings of the measures are often not clear. Also the manner
in which the data are collected is not known. For instance, it is not clear to
an analyst as to what is included under the heading “Percentage of Hindi
Work to Total Work” (reported in the Annual Assessment Reports) and how
this data is collected in different departments etc. It appears that whatever
is reported by the various departmental/office heads are simply accepted
and reported. The DOL does have an Annual Programme (generally a
routine document) but there is no way to know as to what extent the targets
are achieved annually. The DOL does conduct inspections and these could
be another important source of data. Outside analysts and policy-makers
would be benefited if the manner of the conduct of language audit and the
results are made available to citizens.
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
The DOL’s monitoring and evaluation capacity therefore needs to be
strengthened and professionalized. The regular monitoring system
needs to be revamped and supplemented by sample based impact
audits to know not only the extent of usage but also to identify the
factors that are retarding the spread of the language in official usage.
42