English as an ‘agent of decolonisation’?

The position of English in the Indian linguistic context has always been problematic because of its colonial association. One needs to examine this association especially in the context of Macaulay's (Reference Macaulay1835) education policy that planned to ‘form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect’. Such an ideological stance led Phillipson (Reference Phillipson1992) to describe the British language policy during colonial rule as ‘linguicism’. However, recent developments in language policy research, represented by scholars such as Vaish (Reference Vaish2005) and Weber (Reference Weber2014), have brought forth counter-arguments to the linguicism narrative by portraying English as a ‘language of decolonisation’. Vaish (Reference Vaish2005: 201ff.) disagrees with sociolinguists such as Skutnabb–Kangas et al. (Reference Skutnabb–Kangas, Phillipson, Mohanty, Panda and Skutnabb–Kangas2009: 325) and Mohanty (Reference Mohanty and Skutnabb-Kangas2009: 5) who posit that English endangers local languages and perpetuates inequality, and argues that English is ‘an agent of decolonisation’ that enables the urban poor to access the global economy. This argument, informed by the works of postcolonial thinkers such as Said (Reference Said1979), impels one to re-examine the conceptual frameworks (Phillipson, Reference Phillipson1992; Skutnabb–Kangas, Reference Skutnabb–Kangas2000) that challenge the ‘linguistic imperialism’ of English and argue in favour of protecting the identity of the speakers of minority languages by promoting multilingual education.

Language hierarchies

When India was fighting for its independence from colonial rule, political leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi wanted to substitute English with an Indian language as the main language of administration (Gandhi, Reference Gandhi and Perel1997). After independence, the most favoured language to be designated the official language was Hindi or Hindustani. The use of English as an associate official language, while Hindi remained the main official language, was allowed for a period of 15 years starting from 26 January 1950, the day on which the Constitution of India came into force. The states of India agreed to use Hindi as the sole means of communication for different administrative purposes after 26 January 1965 (Sharma, Reference Sharma, Schrammel–Leber and Korb2015). However, as a result of the resistance posed by some non-Hindi-speaking states, especially Tamil Nadu, the Indian government agreed to allow the use of English as the main language of communication between the centre and the states, and for various other administrative purposes. This policy transformed the status of English in India by making it the most dominant language, while reducing Hindi to second position. The languages that were dominant at the regional level such as Tamil or Telugu assumed third place in the language hierarchy, while minority languages were placed at the bottom. Such a hierarchy, dominated by English, has engendered a complex situation eliciting both unfavourable and favourable opinions by scholars. For example, Mohanty (Reference Mohanty2010: 140) argues that due to the dominant presence of English, ‘all multilingual societies in South Asia characteristically show signs of a hierarchical multilingualism with English [ . . . ] at the top of the hierarchy’, which is highly disadvantageous for the indigenous and tribal minority languages, as their needs are seldom taken into account. According to Mohanty (ibid.), this ‘linguistic double divide in the hierarchical power structure of languages leads to deprivation and impoverishment of languages, threats of language shift and endangerment, and identity crises’ for the indigenous and tribal minority languages.

The linguistic double divide

Weber (Reference Weber2014: 51), whose ideas are in line with those of Vaish (Reference Vaish2005), criticises Mohanty (Reference Mohanty2010) and argues that the most urgent issue is to help the disadvantaged communities out of poverty even if ‘it should be at the cost of further endangering their languages’. Weber (Reference Weber2014: ibid.) posits that the ‘Great or Double Divide’ is primarily between people and only derivatively between languages, as ‘it is people who suffer from deprivation and impoverishment or form identity crises, and the people who are most deprived and impoverished are often also those whose languages are most marginalised’. Weber (Reference Weber2014: 54) argues that only focusing on the linguistic rights of minorities and trying to elevate the status of their languages will not, necessarily or automatically, raise their socioeconomic status. This is a critical issue because it has been argued that ‘putting people first’ should not entail willingness on the part of scholars to compromise with the identity of speakers of minority languages. Skutnabb–Kangas et al. (Reference Skutnabb–Kangas, Phillipson, Mohanty, Panda and Skutnabb–Kangas2009: 328) posit in this regard that English as the only medium of higher education ensures the cultural alienation of learners. Therefore, one needs to ask if English can actually act as an agent of decolonisation if it has the potential to alienate learners from their own culture, because colonisation is not merely restricted to the economy. The process of colonisation also permeated intellectual and emotional spheres, as evidenced by the aforementioned ideology of creating ‘a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect’ (Macaulay, Reference Macaulay1835). Therefore, cultural alienation has to be understood as one of the mechanisms of colonisation, which makes it difficult to associate English with the process of decolonisation.

Dominance of regional languages

Researchers must take into account that English is not the only dominating force in India because power and ideology come into play at different levels (Sharma, Reference Sharma, Schrammel–Leber and Korb2015). That is to say, domination–subordination patterns occur not just at the national, but also at the state, level. For example, in the case of Rajasthan, where the speakers of different dialects of Hindi, including Mewari, Harauti, Malvi, Dhundhari, united against the proposal to make Marwari, another local dialect of Hindi, to become one of the official languages of India (Sharma, Reference Sharma, Schrammel–Leber and Korb2015).Footnote ¹ Speakers of these languages did not object to Hindi being the dominant language, but claimed that the recognition of Marwari as one of India's official languages could lead to the disintegration of Rajasthan. While Hindi was accepted by the speakers of local languages, it was seen as an imperialistic force by the non-Hindi-speaking states when the Government of India tried to implement it as the only official language of India.

Multilingual education and varied ‘mother tongues’

Mother tongue based multilingual education, promoted by scholars such as Mohanty (Reference Mohanty and Skutnabb-Kangas2009) as the alternative to English-medium education, is not an easy task to achieve because of two main issues. First, there is a large amount of linguistic variation in India, which makes it difficult to define what a ‘mother tongue’ constitutes. If we take the case of Hindi, it is evident that the form of Hindi taught in schools as the standard may differ to a smaller or greater extent from its other varieties such as Bhojpuri, Chhatisgarhi, Garhwali, Kangri, Marwari or Magahi. The Census of India (Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, 2001) lists as many as 49 ‘languages’ or ‘mother tongues’ which are grouped as varieties of Hindi. Moreover, there may be great variation even within these local varieties of Hindi. For example, the form of Magahi spoken in Patna is not same as the one spoken in the Nalanda district of Bihar. Such variation poses a huge challenge for policymakers because they have to decide which ‘mother tongues’ will be taught in schools, and such decisions could lead to political controversies. Second, the ideology of standardisation creates an impediment to the educational attainment of the speakers of marginalised varieties. Khubchandani (Reference Khubchandani2003: 245) posits that the acquisition of standardised languages, such as Hindi, Urdu, Panjabi, Marathi and Tamil, is ‘more like learning a second language’ for speakers of marginalised varieties and claims further that ‘this tyranny has a telling effect on mass literacy programmes’. For example, Barooah et al. (Reference Barooah2015: 150) note that ‘in Orissa, tribal pupils who spoke their own dialect were handicapped by the fact that they were taught in Odiya, the state's official language and medium of instruction’.

Challenges for policymakers

The main challenge for the policymakers is to devise policies that are more inclusive. As Khubchandani (Reference Khubchandani2003: 251) proposes, ‘when dealing with plural societies, we would do well to realize the risks involved in uniform solutions’, as ‘the overall guiding spirit should be to create a language environment which meets the demands of social justice, bearing in mind the specific needs of minority cultures’. However, one should not ignore that in a country like India it is challenging to devise policies that individually cater to different groups because of the enormous linguistic diversity. Even though mother-tongue instruction or mother-tongue-based multilingual education might be a way to protect the identity of linguistic minorities, it should not come at the cost of social mobility. Benefits of English-language skills and English-medium schooling for individual economic mobility have been emphasised in a number of studies. For example, according to Munshi and Rosenzweig (Reference Munshi and Rosenzweig2006: 1226), attending English-medium schools increased both women's and men's incomes by about 25% in 2000. Moreover, Azam et al. (Reference Azam2011: 17) note that compared to men who have no English ability, men who are fluent in English earn 34% higher hourly wages, while men who speak a little English earn 13% more. This correlation between the English language and individual earning ability is further established by Chakraborty and Bakshi (Reference Chakraborty and Bakshi2016: 12), according to whom a 10% lower probability of learning English in primary schools leads to an 8% decline in weekly wages.

Despite the risk of endangerment of minority languages, English-medium instruction could be deemed a better policy, as it helps individuals with social mobility. In terms of the instrumentality vs. identity debate, it would mean that the instrumentality aspect should be prioritised, as English acts as a means to climb up the social ladder. My decision to favour an English-medium instruction is also, to a certain extent, personal. Of all my siblings I was the only one who had the opportunity to go to an English-medium school, which helped me attend good universities across the world. Finally, one might also ask if these two approaches have to be mutually exclusive. An ideal language policy would exist if policymakers could ensure that these two approaches do not exclude each other. However, if a choice has to be made, preference should be given to social mobility, since as a scholar my primary goal is to counter inequalities.