Comprehension
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]
Question: 1

Which of the following can be inferred about the author’s views on English in contemporary India?

Show Hint

When two options look plausible, prefer the one that the passage states explicitly over one that is only indirectly implied.
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
  • The ability to speak English in India depends on place and social identity.
  • English is not an Indian language.
  • English language fluency does not necessarily imply competence.
  • People’s views on English are divided along political lines.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Step 1 (Extract the author’s claim).
The passage opens: “English encodes class in India… sliding into the DNA of social division: income, caste, gender, religion or place of belonging.” This explicitly links English proficiency/access to where you are from and who you are in social terms.
Step 2 (Check alternatives).
(B) may be suggested by Gandhi’s description of English as a “foreign medium,” but the author’s focus is not on denying its Indianness; it’s on access and inequality.
(C) is hinted at (E2s can be “equally intelligent… yet appear incompetent”), but the clearest, direct statement is the dependence on social identity and place.
(D) Mentions “across the political spectrum,” which implies broad concern, not sharp division by politics.
Step 3 (Conclude).
Thus (A) captures the author’s central, explicit view.
\[ \boxed{\text{(A) The ability to speak English depends on place and social identity}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 2

Who among the following would defy Chetan Bhagat’s neat categorisation of Indian English-speakers into E1 and E2?

Show Hint

When asked who “defies” a model, pick examples that directly contradict the model’s predictions or stereotypes.
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
  • Savitha… English-medium, upper-middle class; fumbles in interviews due to nervousness.
  • Moin… milkman’s background; learns English at 17; becomes a spoken-English instructor.
  • Both (A) and (B)
  • Neither (A) nor (B)
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is C

Solution and Explanation

Step 1 (Recall Bhagat’s scheme).
E1: early, privileged access; English is instinctive; much in demand. E2: technically familiar but often judged incompetent by E1s.
Step 2 (Test the cases).
(A) Savitha has E1-type background but underperforms in interviews — contradicts the “instinctive, much in demand” stereotype.
(B) Moin is E2-type by background yet masters English and teaches it — overturns the stereotype that E2s remain subordinate.
Step 3 (Conclude).
Both cases violate the “neat” E1/E2 boxes, aligning with the author’s point that “there is more than one kind of E1 and… E2,” and E2s can “overthrow E1s.”
\[ \boxed{\text{(C) Both (A) and (B)}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 3

Which of the following best describes the author’s response to Bhagat’s views on English?

Show Hint

Look for hedging phrases (“may not,” “more than one kind,” “does not factor in”)—they signal a nuanced critique rather than full agreement or dismissal.
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
  • Dismisses him as a self-appointed expert.
  • Completely agrees with his views.
  • Neither agrees nor disagrees.
  • Considers his views and finds that they lack nuance.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is D

Solution and Explanation

Step 1 (Note the author’s stance).
The author outlines Bhagat’s argument, then qualifies it: “The situation may not be so comically stark… There is more than one kind of E1… and more than one way E2s can overthrow E1s.”
Step 2 (Eliminate others).
(A) Too harsh; the author reports Bhagat’s role but does not merely dismiss him. (B) False — the author explicitly complicates Bhagat’s view. (C) False — the author takes a position (adds nuance).
Step 3 (Match).
Therefore (D) best describes the response.
\[ \boxed{\text{(D) Lacks nuance}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 4

Which of the following can be inferred from Gandhi’s views with respect to English in post-independence India?

Show Hint

Differentiate between opposing a language as a medium of instruction and opposing it as a subject of study—they are not the same claim.
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
  • English should not be taught as a subject in Indian universities.
  • English proficiency is vital in order to gain entry into the bureaucracy.
  • Indian women cannot get rich if they do not know English.
  • None of the above.
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1 (Use Gandhi’s quote).
“Boys think… that without English they cannot get government service. Girls are taught English as a passport to marriage.”
Step 2 (Infer carefully).
The perception (and reality, in context) is that English is necessary for government employment — i.e., bureaucracy.
Step 3 (Eliminate).
(A) He criticises English as a medium of instruction, not as a subject. (C) Not stated or implied.
\[ \boxed{\text{(B) English is vital for entry into government service}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0
Question: 5

Which of the following pairs of words are synonyms, except?

Show Hint

For synonym questions, test each pair in a simple sentence; if the sentence’s meaning flips or breaks, they aren’t synonyms.
Updated On: Aug 13, 2025
  • Stark, sharp
  • Sophisticated, spoil
  • Conundrum, problem
  • Cohesive, united
Hide Solution
collegedunia
Verified By Collegedunia

The Correct Option is B

Solution and Explanation

Step 1 (Check meanings).
(A) Stark (plain, severe) can align with sharp/clear in context — near-synonymous.
(C) Conundrumproblem/puzzle.
(D) Cohesiveunited/connected.
(B) Sophisticated (refined/complex) is the opposite of spoil (to ruin/damage). Not synonymous.
Step 2 (Identify the exception).
Thus (B) is the non-synonymous pair.
\[ \boxed{\text{(B) Sophisticated, spoil}} \]
Was this answer helpful?
0
0

Top Questions on Reading Comprehension

View More Questions

Questions Asked in CLAT exam

View More Questions