Reframing English Studies in India: Socio-Psycholinguistic Issues

A cursory glance at the prescribed books and recommended books in the curricula of the UG/PG programmes in the Universities will make one realise that almost all the books are by either British or American authors or from the Indian authors who parrot the Western ideas and arguments. There are hardly any books from the countries where English is taught as a second/ foreign language or from the Indian authors who present an Indian perspective/ point of view. This ignoring of a vast reservoir of the knowledge and experiences of the similarly situated people is to our detriment. The curricula developed by Curriculum Development Centre⁹ are no different. Their study also highlights the fact that an undue emphasis on teaching English Literature is there in the curricula. This is a sort of colonial hangover which is justified unabashedly by many intellectuals located in India and abroad. Let me illustrate it with an example from a typical PG course in Literary Criticism (From Plato to Showalter) at Indian Institute of Technology Madras (archive.nptel). It is well known that reading of literature evokes certain emotions. But, in the curriculum, no course is offered that talks about these emotions and the process of evoking these emotions. The only literary critic who refers to emotions is Aristotle; he mentions two emotions (pity and fear) with reference to tragedy and refers to one (comic) in context of Comedy. Bharata on the other hand discusses eight emotions¹⁰ in his Natya Shastra in detail. Naturally, a student who knows about eight emotions is in a better position to understand and appreciate literature and life than the one who knows only about two. Bharata is ignored because he is a native; this ignorance helps in maintaining colonial hegemony; besides the student's understanding of literature remains incomplete.

The English curriculum in India is largely, an epiphenomenon of the Macaulay's plans (in the form of his Minutes on Education) of linguistic imperialism which had both overt and covert designs though English-language education had started in India as early as 1717. The Minutes were not a product of gentility and benignity but a work of hostility. The overt plan was simply to stop grants for Oriental education and to extend financial support to English education with a view to discourage the learning of Arabic and Sanskrit, introduce English as a medium of instruction and to create «a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect» (columbia.edu) who could in their turn develop the tools to transmit Western learning in the local languages of India. Besides, Macaulay was convinced that the British (or perhaps Scottish because he himself came from that stock) White Christians were more intelligent than the brown Indians, particularly the Hindus. In the «Minutes on Education» he, therefore, is dismissive of the Indian/ Hindu belief systems, history, physical and moral philosophy, astronomy, geography, medicine, religion and law. Macaulay's objective was far more than to «introduce progress and civilization to the Indians», an explication of the colonial project of «white man's civilizing mission». Macaulay's plan included cultural colonialisation of India as well: «The languages of Western Europe civilized Russia. I cannot doubt that they will do for the Hindoo what they have done for the tartar». (columbia.edu) The covert plan of religious imperialism through education is affirmed and explicated by him openly in a private letter to his father, Zachary Macaulay, who «worked endlessly ... to Christianize and improve the world» (Wikipedia). Here is an extract from the letter:

«Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. We find it difficult, indeed at some places impossible, to provide instruction for all who want it. At the single town of Hoogley fourteen hundred boys are learning English. The effect of this education on the Hindoos is prodigious. No Hindoo who has received an English education ever continues to be sincerely attached to his religion. Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy. But many profess themselves pure Deists, and some embrace Christianity. The case with Mahometans is very different. The best-educated Mahometan often continues to be a Mahometan still. The reason is plain. The Hindoo religion is so extravagantly absurd that it is impossible to teach a boy astronomy, geography, natural history, without completely destroying the hold which that religion has on his mind. But the Mahometan religion belongs to a better family. It has very much in common with Christianity; and even where it is most absurd, it is reasonable when compared with Hindooism. It is my firm belief that, if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, merely by the natural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in this prospect...». (emphasis added, Trevelyan, 1876, p. 454-56)

If one reads the above extract in conjunction with the Minutes¹¹ one can easily note the contradiction in Macaulay's statements on the role of the state in the matter of religion and religious conversions. His contempt and hatred of Hindus/ heathans, like that of typical Christian bigot is quite apparent. It is no surprise, therefore, that he wished to establish British hegemony by destroying the Indians culturally, mentally, religiously and economically.

In order to perpetuate his rule a coloniser needs to control the system of justice for immediate gains and education for long term advantages. As a protйgй of the colonial powers Macaulay chalked out very clever plans to control the colonised's mental as well as physical beings. In order to prove hims elf «more just» the coloniser rejects the old sets of rules and rolls out the new ones. When the East India Company started ruling Bengal, they used to dispense justice to the Hindus mainly on the basis of Mitaksara (Rocher, 1968, p. 119-128); when they moved northwards other prevailing rules of the land were adopted by them¹²; this is to say that they did not insist on dispensing justice according to Snglish jurisprudence in the first phase of their rule. As a short-term measure to strengthen their position the Coloniser needs to control the «physical beings» of the Colonised; to achieve this objective the existing rules have to be replaced by a new set. Macaulay, therefore, drafted the «Indian Penal Code (IPC)»¹³ to replace the existing ones. IPC was based on a simplified codification of the law of Sngland at the time; some of its elements were also derived from the Napoleonic Code and Edward Livingston's Louisiana Civil Code of 1825; the existing Indian laws rooted in the soil were not at all taken into consideration though a very rich tradition of law, lawyers, principles and judgments existed in India as has also been demonstrated by Ludo Rocher (1969, p. 383-402, Studies). However, even in the post-independent India we have neither abandoned Macaulay's c reation, IPC, nor have disregarded colonial practices administering justice a fact feebly lamented even by the Chief Justice of India, N V Ramana, who remarked, «Indianisation of the country's legal system is the need of the hour and it is crucial to make the justice delivery system more accessible and effective». (TOI: Sept 18, 2021) Supreme Court Justice S. Abdul Nazeer has suggested a specific way to Indianize the system: «the surer yet arduous way to free administration of justice in India from the colonial psyche is to teach law students about ancient yet advanced legal jurisprudence [and adoption of] «the legal norms developed by great scholars like Manu, Kautilya, Brihaspati and others». (Mahapatra, 2021) No wonder, when the Justice S Abdul Nazeer gives a spirited call to be «back to the roots» it is taken as a surprise in certain sections of the Indian press and society. It will not be out of place to point out that Justice Markandey Katju has highlighted the limitations of the pure western jurisprudence in several of his judgments (in Allahabad High Court and Supreme Court of India)¹⁴ wherein he used Mimamsa¹⁵ principles of interpretation, the native wisdom. Justice Katju has also highlighted that there is no constitutional or any other legal binding to use only the Principles of Interpretation given by Maxwell, Craies, Crawford, Sutherland etc in the Indian courts. Still, almost all Indian jurists use them in their judgments/ interpretations, laments Justice Katju. It is so because our universities teach only the Western principles and ignore our thinkers though we have a much longer¹⁶ tradition of Interpretation in our country. It is quite deplorable¹⁷, that even in the post-colonial times our modern universities emulate Anglo-American tradition at the cost of pubic exchequer; it is tantamount to saying that the modern-day governments are paying for propagating the myth that the Indians have no worthwhile intellectual achievement to their credit.

As a long-term strategy, Macaulay drafted «Minutes on Education» to control the mental selves of the colonised. He attempts this by colonising their minds, changing their sensibility and converting them to Christianity both overtly and covertly. The outcome, the modern-day education system, is flourishing in modern India, despite several education commissions. It is quite unfortunate that the Govt of India has not only continued with both the instruments of colonial control almost without any amendments but has taken them to the far and nook of the country and has bestowed high prestige to them as well. The Govt of India has also continued with the overt plans of Macaulay by accepting and adopting his policy of religious neutrality in the educational institutions. However, it is quite unfortunate that the covert plan has not only been accepted by the government but also is being propagated blatantly. The intellectuals, teachers, political leaders and bureaucracy have just remained silent spectators and have not attempted to unravel the efforts to Christianize the whole country through education (medical education included). It will be quite appropriate to quote Ramdhari Singh Dinkar's following lines about their indifferent attitude: «The struggle is still on, the huntsman alone is not the partaker of the sin, time will also judge the transgressions of those who remained indifferent».¹⁸ (My translation).

In the light of the above background, it is expected that both the teacher and the learner should ask themselves the following questions in order to decolonise the curricula of English Studies:

• Is it literature or English literature that matters for imbibing certain values?

• Do those who study English Literature «receive more wisdom» from their curricula?

• Has English ever been the de jure official language in Britain or the US?

• How many countries out of C 95 in the world at present use English de jure and de facto?

• Is English really used by the largest number of people in the World?

• Why does the curriculum represent only the English and not the other nationalities?

• Why does the curriculum represent only English and not Englishes?

• Why is the curriculum dominated by Christian authors?

• Why does the curriculum centre around the whites?

• Why does the curriculum centre around the males?

• Why does the curriculum present my/ our forefathers as pigmies?

• Why is the curriculum reading centric?

• Why is the curriculum not life-oriented?

• Is Raja Rao's proclamation («We cannot write like the English. We should not». Kanthapura: v) false?

• What makes one believe that a western outfit is better and trendier than an indigenous one?

• What makes one believe that «Hello, Good Morning Professor» is better than wishing him in a more traditional way?

• Why smoking a pipe is a sign of cultured behaviour while smoking a bidi is uncultured?

• Why do some of the teachers praise a European street singer and condemn the Indian one as a beggar?

• Why does one look westward after taking this curriculum?

• When and why does one start considering one's forefathers fools after taking this curriculum?

• When and why does a person start hating his motherland and start considering the question, why did I take birth in «this dirty land», after taking this curriculum?

The answers to the above questions may lead one to conclude that the existing curriculum in English are neither largely inclusive nor egalitarian in character; on the other hand, the curricula perpetuate the hegemony of the coloniser in all walks of life; it deracinates the natives as it is racist in nature. What is unfortunate is that the racism is being perpetuated by the natives/ «black angrez» in the name of education/ modernization.

The modern Indian education system has not only impacted our collective epistemological viewpoints but our society as a whole has also been impacted; we seem to be a rootless society that suddenly came into existence in 1947 out of nothing. Racism is not basically about colour; it's about power. The present education system does not empower the Indians; it becomes so visible in the matter of economic achievements. This is very clear from the statistics about imports and exports. «India's share of the world economy was 23 per cent, as large as all of Europe put together [when Britain arrived on it's shores, but] by the time the British departed [from] India, it had dropped to j ust over 3 per cent». (Tharoor, 2016, p. 4) «India's share of global gross domestic product (GDP) rose to 7.09 percent in 2019» (O'Neill Oct 27) The exports and imports of India in 2019 were: the total value of exports (FoB) was 323,251 million; the total value of imports (CIF) was 478,884 million». (wits.worldbank) This powerlessness can also be measured in terms of the meagre number of publications from the Indian universities on one hand and those from the western university presses like Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Durham etc on the other. It is so obvious that the opinion building power (soft power) rests with the West. Money minting power by way of the export of the books and ideas also lies with them. So, decolonising the curriculum is not needed solely for cultural or intellectual reasons but also for economic reasons. This is not being demanded by some Hindu chauvinist but is an economic necessity. If India is to be governed in equitable and non-partisan manner, power has to slip from the hands of the handful of «macaulay ki aulad» (Macaulay's children), the degenerated angelized Indians who wield the stick of English. One thing that every teacher/ student of English can do immediately is to denigrate it and stop being a part of its propaganda and prop agation machine. Bourdieu refers to this process as the `habitus' self -propagated and protected. It is quite understandable that no decolonised and democratic country can afford to dismantle the existing institutions like colleges and universities in a single stroke but continuing to multiply such institutions even after gaining political freedom will be considered a grave mistake fraught with its own dangers of getting neo-colonised, if not colonised by the same/different political power. The situation as a matter of fact has gravely led us to a neo-colonialised position: the influence of American system of education can very easily be perceived in the NEP-2020.

There ate a large number of academicians who claim that the teaching of English literature in India (TELI) is necessitated because English is a lingua franca in India and is patronised by the Government of India as an Official language¹⁹. Such persons speak only half-truth as no literature can be the «lingua franca»; they deliberately gloss over the fact that English Language and English Literature are two different issues/disciplines. The belief that by teaching English Literature alone the proficiency in English Language can be achieved/ increased is not backed by any authentic data/ research. Even the postulation that English Literature/ Language are synonymous or are interdependent does not prove English to be the lingua franca in India. As regards, English Language being the official language, the Constitution does not envisage perpetuating its status for ever as the provision has been inserted to meet a particular contingency. Again, if English is the «lingua franca» of the anglicised Indian academicians or of the Indian people needs a close scrutiny on the basis of some authentic data. That E nglish is the «lingua franca» of the people is just a presumption, not backed up by the figures in the Census (2011). According to 2011 Census just .02 % of total Indian population (Males: 1,29,115, Females: 1,30,563, Total 2,59,678) (censusindia) recognized English as their mother-tongue and only 10.6% of total population use it as second and third language (Wikipedia, censusindia)(while 8,27,17,239 persons (6.835% of the total Indian population) use it as their second language, 4,55,62,173 Indians (3.765% of the total Indian population) use it as their third language). In the Census its decadal (2001-2011) percentage growth has been reported to be 14.67, much less in comparison of several other languages. In a nationally representative sample survey conducted by Lok Foundation and Oxford University, administered by the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy in 2019, «just 6% of respondents said they could speak English, less that what the 2011 Census showed». (livemint) If about 90-95% population of this huge multilingual and multicultural country do not know/use English is it justifiable to describe English language as the lingua franca of India? Again, it has been reported in Lok Foundation survey that «English speakers are richer, more educated and more lik ely to be upper caste». (livemint.com) This minority group because of the colonial hangover holds a considerable economic power and assumes the role of opinion and decision makers in this country. Can this minority group be allowed to continue social ostracization of the majority by holding power against the egalitarian norms? Can this socially elite²⁰ group of people be the sole representative of India against all democratic norms? As a matter of fact, these academicians argue in the manner of Macaulay who believed that scholars of English could be produced in this country by teaching them English literature. If their arguments had been valid English courses in India would have seen the presence of Indian scholars in various syllabi. In countries like France, Germany, Russia and Japan (where English is not the medium of instruction) the foreign scholars (who go there for higher studies) are taught the language (of the respective country) in one year with such proficiency that they are not only able to complete their higher studies but also write doctoral dissertation and publish papers in that language in the journals of international repute. On the contrary, in India despite teaching English literature for more than sixteen years the students fumble for words to express themselves, what to say of writing and publishing a research paper in correct English. If my testimony on the worthlessness of the approach/ course is any good, here it goes:

«I, along with some others, was associated with the evaluation of the answer scripts in a recently held competitive examination for post of lecturers in Government intermediate colleges. This examination was open to the Indians holding at least MA (English) degree; about 1500 candidates appeared in this examination after passing a screening test. Only a few answer scripts were written in tolerably correct English; the answers largely gave no clue of the examinees' comprehension of the questions and the instructions -neither in the literature section nor in the grammar section. Having examined such scripts, I felt I had wasted forty years of my life just for earning wages. My experience of interviewing candidates for the post of Assistant Professor (English) has rarely been better».

At this point, let me also examine some of the presumptions in the Minutes. Macaulay writes: «... it is possible to make natives of this country thoroughly good English scholars, and that to this end our efforts ought to be directed». (columbia.edu) Elsewhere he wrote, «I hope that, twenty years hence, there will be hundreds, nay thousands, of natives familiar with the best models of composition, and well acquainted with Western science. Among them some persons will be found who will have the inclination and the ability to exhibit European knowledge in the vernacular dialects». (Trevelyan, 1876, p. 411) It is clear that Macaulay was preparing a ground for the spread of the Western ideas in this country, through his percolation theory, by trying to prepare some local who will act as his agents but will work in local languages. Even if Macaulay's intentions are taken on their face value, he was proved wrong by the outcome of his policy. The impact of the new education system, in contrast to the local-language schools, was not desirable in terms of the language proficiency though it was successful in achieving its goal in terms of changing the character²¹ of those who undertook this education. He had wrongly presumed that simply by teaching English Literature and introducing English as a medium of instruction the learners will improve their competence in English. It is clear from the evidence collected in the form of letters, extracts from the examination copies, miscellaneous passages and poetry of the period collected in the book entitled IndoAnglian Literature¹¹ which is a sort of empirical study. On the basis of the evidence in the form of the compositions of the natives, the author, B. A., points out three faults of the education being imparted: a) «mistakes in grammar and diction», b) «curious mixture of self-abasement and vanity» c) looking down upon their parents' profession and turning away from them. In addition to this the author quotes a report published in the Calcutta Review (1883): a) «it has made them more litigious» b) «it has made them less contended with their lot in life and less willing to work with their hands». Almost something similar has been expressed by Gandhi in Hind Swaraj and elsewhere.

On the question of the value of native literatures the opinion of the Oriental and Occidental groups was unanimous as is apparent from the following two opinions. Macaulay's haughtily opined, «that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support the oriental plan of education». (columbia.edu) Likewise, a member of the Oriental group, Henry Thoby Prinsep, held:

«It is laid down that the vernacular dialects are not fit to be made the vehicle of instruction in science or literature, that the choice is therefore between English on one hand and Sanscrit and Arabic on the other-the latter are dismissed on the ground that their literature is worthless and the superiority of that of England is set forth in an animated description of the treasures of science and of intelligence it contains and of the stores of intellectual enjoyment it opens. There is no body acquainted with both literatures that will not subscribe to all that is said in the minute of the superiority of that of England... (emphasis added, Sharp, 1920, p. 121)

The unanimity on the issue of denigrating native literatures seems to be emanating from their «national pride» which to an Indian is a euphuism for colonial pride. Indians have, in fact, have been quite meek to ask about the qualification of the members of both the groups i.e., occidental and oriental plan²³ to know the extent of their familiarity with European and Indian languages and literatures to pass a judgment. The educated Indians have largely accepted Macaulay's judgment as they have been taught just to accept English opinions without any critical scrutiny. The Indian teachers of English go a step further and act as Macaulay's trumpeting agents who spread unsubstantiated claims and propagate myths like «English is used all over the world», «English Literature is the best/ universal literature», «Shakespeare is a universal dramatist», «India/Indians will not prosper without English» and «For a majority of Indians English has become their own language, their only language of expression» (Banu, 2020, p. 17) for they have their axe to grind at the cost of truth and at the cost of national mental freedom.

Discussion

Macaulay did not want to produce any critical thinkers through his plan²⁴. As indicated above he did not hide his agenda either; he had twin purpose in his mind: to convert Indian sensibility into English sensibility and to establish the hegemony of English by replacing Sanskrit/ Arabic by English as a medium of instruction.

«We must at present do our best 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. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population». (columbia.edu)

In India performance of pubic duty is highly praised and practiced too. Lord Ram has been glorified in this country for performing his duty in every role and in every walk of life. Similarly, Lord Krishna is revered by the Indians because he preached the doctrine of Karma, action/duty. Indians believe that duty is more important than caring for the personal relationships. In India, we are also taught to forsake one's interest for a larger good²⁵. For Ram his duty as a king (public duty) was more important than his duty towards his wife (personal duty). There are various examples of this in the past and the present. For example, for Arjun his duty as a warrior was more important than his personal relationships. Mahatma Gandhi, Vinoba Bhave, Nanaji Deshmukh and A P J Abdul Kalam are some of the examples in the recent times to exemplify my contention. In India, even a Riti Kaleen poet, Bihari, scolds the king, Jai Singh, for being oblivious of his duties. He reminds him of his Kingly duties: «nahi parag, nahi madhur madhu, nahi bikasu ihi kal, ali kali hi so bindhyo aage kaun haval» (hindwi.org). In a country where so much of emphasis on «all for duty» and «duty for all» is there the teachers of English glorify «all for [illicit] love» in the classrooms. They glorify Dryden's Antony for his turning away from his duties as a king and justify his caring more for his personal love. I consider it to be a typical example of their effort of changing the sensibility of their Indian students. There are many more such examples which are not being given here for want of space. Thus, it is very clear that teaching of English literature leads to encouraging Englishism at the peril of Indian thought and culture and strengthens the idea of colonial notion/myth of Indian inferiority in matters of language, literature, science and thought. All this is done in the name of sticking to a canon of English Studies. They do not realize that the European canons are not universal in nature and they have also changed over the period of time. For example, no female poet was being taught in poetry paper I and II (i.e. from Chaucer to T S Eliot, a period from 1343 to 1965) of MA (P), Allahabad University. This was in conformity with the practice of Norton Anthology. But under the pressure of feminist movement several female poets have found an entry into Norton Anthology now, though at Prayagraj and perhaps elsewhere too they are still being ignored. Similar is the case of a concept like Christian patriarchal²⁶ system against which women rose and a movement like feminism came into existence. But the Indian teachers teach them as if the two concepts are typical of an Indian society, irrespective of any Christian reference. The Indian teachers do not realize that the European/ British sensibility is different from the Indian because of different backgrounds and mental make-ups.

A theosophist and an Indianist, popularly addressed as Kulapati by his Indian friends, James H Cousins in his book The Renaissance in India (1918) has argued that the Indian sensibility being unique is different from the Europeans'. He has urged Indians to express it by maintaining their unique identity in their writings as well: «Be yourselves first: do not fall under the illusory notion that you are fulfilling your ideal in desiring to write as good blank verse as Tennyson, or as fine lyrics as Swinburne». (Cousins, p. 155-56) He further explains his position:

«If they must write in English, let it be in the English language only: let them keep themselves unspotted of its point of view, temperament, its mannerisms; for their repetitions of these will fail of conviction, which is one of the absolute essentials of art, since they can never disguise the fact that they are imitations, and Nature abhors imitation more that she does a vacuum: there is a chance of filling a vacuum, but none of turning an imitation into an original». (Cousins, p. 170)

The stand of James Cousins is almost a repeat of Edmund Gosse's advice to Sarojini Naidu. Gosse had commented, «The verses which Sarojini had entrusted to me were skilful in form, correct in grammar and blameless in sentiment, but they had the disadvantage of being totally without individuality..». (wikisource.org) He could hear the mocking bird of English poets in them and so he advised her to «set her poems firmly among the mountains, the gardens, the temples, to introduce to us the vivid populations of her own voluptuous, and unfamiliar province; in other words, to be a genuine Indian poet of the Deccan, not a clever machine-made imitator of the English classics». Sarojini Naidu `immediately accepted' Gosse's advice to her advantage and expressed «Eastern magic» in a «Western language» in her poetry²⁷.

From the above discussion it should be clear by now that Indian sensibility is different from the Western/ British. In the postcolonial world it is, therefore, imperative to save this sensibility that Macaulay was trying to destroy/ change to his empire's advantage.

English Literature: Fiction and Reality