The observation contained in the above passage and the context in which it was made should engage the attention of all those who are interested in the teaching of English in this country, particularly, parents, teachers, and educational authorities among them. That a privileged but egoistic elite have always been and still are trying to impede the acquisition by the less fortunately circumstanced sections of the society of a knowledge of English is a popular, oft-repeated charge among certain English language teaching professionals. This class are said to jealously guard English as their exclusive possession, because it is the main source of their power, prestige, privilege, and position; they resent any inroads made by the lower classes into their domain by gaining a knowledge of English. At the same time, the very declaration of a year dedicated for English and Information Technology is a measure of the importance attached by the state to the teaching of the two subjects, which, in our educational context, are obviously correlated; not only does this context underscore the seriousness with which English language teaching is treated by the present administration, but also hints at the sociolinguistic dimension of that activity.

 The purpose of this article is primarily not to critique the view expressed in the speech referred to, but to make some cautionary comments on it lest it should be erroneously interpreted to suggest that certain vitally important elements of the English language can be ignored in teaching it. Such an eventuality would be to the detriment of the students who need and want to learn English.

The teaching of English in this country is thought by those who subscribe to the above view to be dominated by curricula and methodologies that cater to a certain rarefied ‘poshness’ in terms of ‘perfect’ grammar, pronunciation, and vocabulary; this alleged conspiratorial insistence on ‘perfection’ in the areas of language mentioned is supposed to have put English beyond the reach of ordinary people.

 (I must make some clarification at this point. My choice of a passage from a speech given by the President as the epigraph to this article is solely based on the fact that I see it as the latest articulation of a prevalent view in the field of teaching English in our country about which I have my personal reservations. It is not intended to detract in the least from the well deserved public approbation of the President’s deep commitment to the success of the teaching of English. His dedication to this cause is unquestionable as evidenced in the very pragmatic way in which he is trying to deal with the problem by being instrumental in inaugurating a Year of English and IT, and by inspiring a job-oriented ‘English as a life skill’ project with Indian help before that .) 

IF we have substantial evidence to believe that there really is at present a ‘high class’ conspiracy to sabotage the English teaching programme by making an unconscionable demand for linguistic ‘perfection’, then I too would unhesitatingly condemn such a reactionary stand for two main reasons: 1) to try to monopolize an invaluable and indispensable resource like a good knowledge of the English language to the disadvantage of a vast majority of the population is a violation of democracy as well as social justice, and 2) as commonly known, there is no universally accepted or acceptable ‘perfect’ form of English, or of any other language for that matter, in terms of grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, etc.

What I am concerned with in this essay, as I have already said in different words, is the danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater! This is because any attack on an alleged unreasonable demand for ‘perfect’ grammar, pronunciation, and dictum could easily degenerate into a facile advocacy of an ‘anything goes’ attitude among teaching circles towards those vital aspects of language.

More meaningful and more effective measures than just denouncing what is seen as obsessive attention to the necessity of ‘perfect’ grammar, pronunciation, etc. have been implemented over the past sixty-five years in order to restrict or overthrow altogether the undue influence of the ‘elite’ class: the introduction of free education (1944), the change of the medium of instruction (1945), the dethronement of English and the concurrent restoration of the national languages to official status in the post-1956 years, and the take-over of private schools (1961) figure prominently among these.