English encodes class in India. It does so by sliding into the DNA of social division: income, caste, gender, religion or place of belonging. The threat it poses to social cohesion has worried public commentators across the political spectrum. In an address delivered as independent India’s Parliament dilly-dallied over the suggestion to replace English with regional languages as the medium of instruction for higher education, Gandhi said, ‘This blighting imposition of a foreign medium upon the youth of the country will be counted by history as one of the greatest tragedies. Our boys think, and rightly in the present circumstances, that without English they cannot get government service. Girls are taught English as a passport to marriage.’
A hundred years later, the language continues to be seen as a tool of exclusion. The problem now is about inequality of access. ‘To be denied English is harmful to the individual as well as our society,’ writes Chetan Bhagat, self-appointed leader of a class war set off by unequal access to English.
Bhagat, an engineer-turned-investment banker, wrote his first college romance in English in 2004. Then only a certain kind of person—someone who grew up reading, writing and speaking the language—wrote books in English—big words, long sentences, literary pretension, heavy with orientalism. In the ten years since Bhagat put the popular in ‘popular’ English fiction, he has written six other novels and sold millions of copies all told. With every new book, all written in deliberately simple English, Bhagat has recruited thousands of new soldiers in his crusade against what he calls the ‘caste system around the language’.
Bhagat even has a term for Indians who ‘have’ English: E1. ‘These people had parents who spoke English, had access to good English-medium schools—typically in big cities, and gained early proficiency, which enabled them to consume English products such as newspapers, books and films. English is so instinctive to them that even some of their thought patterns are in English. These people are much in demand.’
The people E1 presumably control, through a nexus of privilege built on ownership of English, are E2: ‘probably ten times the E1s. They are technically familiar with the language. [But] if they sit in an interview conducted by E1s, they will come across as incompetent, even though they may be equally intelligent, creative or hard-working.’
The situation may not be so comically stark. The haves and have-nots may not exactly fit into Bhagat’s stereotypes of urban, sophisticated rich people and provincial, unworldly poor. His argument does not factor in many other walls around English in India. You are more likely to learn English if you are born a man rather than a woman, high caste rather than low caste, south Indian rather than north Indian. There is more than one kind of E1 and more than one kind of E2. And there is more than one way E2s can overthrow E1s. The joke is to speak it like they do.
[Extracted, with edits and revisions, from: English and Class in India]
Which of the following can be inferred about the author’s views on English in contemporary India?
Correct Answer :
The ability to speak English in India depends on place and social identity.
Solution :
The correct answer is: The ability to speak English in India depends on place and social identity.
Step-by-step Explanation:
Step 1: Identify the author's specific viewpoint in the passage
To infer the author’s perspective, we must look at where the author offers their own critique rather than just summarizing others' views (like Gandhi's historical address or Chetan Bhagat's E1/E2 categorization).
Step 2: Analyze the textual evidence
In the penultimate paragraph, the author critiques Bhagat's simplified division of E1 and E2 by highlighting the real-world complexities in India:
"His argument does not factor in many other walls around English in India. You are more likely to learn English if you are born a man rather than a woman, high caste rather than low caste, south Indian rather than north Indian."
Step 3: Draw the logical inference
The author explicitly highlights that gender (man vs. woman), caste (high vs. low caste), and geographic region (south Indian vs. north Indian) dictate one's access to English. In summary:
• Gender and caste form parts of an individual's social identity.
• Region/geography represents their place of belonging.
Thus, it can be directly inferred that the ability to learn and speak English in contemporary India depends heavily on place and social identity.
Step 4: Evaluate why the other options are incorrect
• English is not an Indian language: The passage discusses the history and social impact of English, but the author never makes a definitive statement declaring English as non-Indian.
• English language fluency does not necessarily imply competence: The passage mentions that E2s may be intelligent but come across as incompetent in interviews conducted by E1s. However, this is part of Bhagat's observation, not the main inference about the author's view.
• People’s views on English are divided along political lines: The passage states that public commentators "across the political spectrum" were worried about social cohesion, implying broad concern across political lines rather than a division along them.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
