SSC CGL 2025 Tier-I · 17 September 2025, Shift 3 · English Comprehension · Question 17 of 100

We transcribed this text from the pictures on a candidate's response sheet for this shift; the answer is the key SSC colour-marked on that sheet. Solution last reviewed 11 September 2026.

Read the following passage and answer the questions based on the passage :
Language has rarely been a neutral vehicle of communication; in colonial India, it functioned as an instrument of control, ideology, and identity. The British administration, while ostensibly engaged in civilizing and educating the colonized, meticulously manipulated linguistic hierarchies to entrench authority. English, elevated to the status of official and judicial language, was not merely a tool of governance—it became a symbol of intellectual legitimacy and social mobility. Indigenous languages, by contrast, were systematically subordinated, fragmented, and recast as vernaculars—a term that subtly suggested parochialism and inferiority. The imposition of English education through Macaulay’s Minute of 1835 was more than a curricular reform; it was a calculated cultural intervention. The production of a class of Indians who were, in Macaulay’s words, “Indian in blood and color, but English in taste,” exemplified a form of linguistic hegemony designed to internalize colonial values. English became the medium through which the colonized were taught to perceive themselves and their traditions through the lens of imperial rationality, often resulting in alienation from indigenous epistemologies. Simultaneously, the colonial state’s treatment of regional languages was riddled with contradictions. While British administrators encouraged the codification of Indian languages, such efforts often stripped them of their oral fluidity and cultural nuance. Sanskrit and Persian, once associated with prestige, were gradually marginalized, while languages like Hindi and Urdu became arenas of communal and political contestation—each championed by different religious and regional groups, further entrenching societal divisions. This reshaping of linguistic order served dual purposes: facilitating administrative efficiency and diffusing dissent. A populace divided along linguistic and communal lines was easier to govern. Moreover, fluency in English became a gatekeeping mechanism for bureaucratic inclusion and economic opportunity, thereby embedding inequality into the fabric of colonial modernity. In essence, language under colonial rule was not just about grammar or vocabulary—it was about access, allegiance, and authority. Understanding this interplay offers a lens into how colonial power was sustained not only through coercion but also through cultural engineering. In post-colonial India, the legacies of this linguistic stratification continue to reverberate in educational policy, social mobility, and debates over language and identity.

What is implied by calling native languages "vernaculars"?

(a)They were widely respected
(b)They were seen as equal to English
(c)They were considered culturally rich
(d)They were regarded as inferior or parochial

Answer

Why

Correct — D. The question's native languages are the passage's indigenous languages, and the passage glosses the label itself.

They were "recast as vernaculars—a term that subtly suggested parochialism and inferiority."

Parochial means narrow and local in outlook. So calling them vernaculars implied they were inferior or parochial → option (d).

Why the others are wrong

(a)
They were widely respected — Widely respected is the reverse. The same sentence says indigenous languages were "systematically subordinated", and the label vernaculars was part of that treatment.
(b)
They were seen as equal to English — Equal to English contradicts the contrast the passage draws: English was "elevated to the status of official and judicial language" while indigenous languages, "by contrast", were subordinated.
(c)
They were considered culturally rich — Culturally rich mixes up two points. The passage credits Indian languages with "cultural nuance" that codification stripped, but the label vernaculars suggested parochialism, not richness.

Concept

An implied-by-calling question asks what a label says about the thing it names. When the passage explains the label itself, that explanation is the answer.

Here the explanation follows a dash, right after the word: vernaculars—"a term that subtly suggested parochialism and inferiority".

The keyed option restates it almost word for word: inferior or parochial.

In dictionaries, vernacular simply means the native language or ordinary speech of a place.

The suggestion of inferiority is the passage's claim about how the colonial label worked, and the question asks for the passage's view.

Key facts

Vernacular: the native language or ordinary speech of a place.
Etymonline traces vernacular to Latin vernaculus, 'domestic, native', from verna, a slave born in the master's house.
Parochial, used figuratively: narrowly focused on local concerns, limited in outlook.

Study next

Implied-meaning questions on a single quoted termWords of scope and outlook: parochial, provincial, cosmopolitanTelling a word's dictionary sense from what a passage says it connotes

Common traps

Answering from the dictionary sense of vernacular, when the question asks what the passage says the label implied
Picking culturally rich because the passage credits Indian languages with cultural nuance in a different sentence

The same move decides 15 Sep 2025, 12:30, English Q.18, where art is called an epistemological act.

The gloss after the dash, challenging dominant paradigms, points to the keyed answer about knowledge structures.

Related PYQs

No directly related past PYQ was found.

Read the following passage and answer the questions based on the passage :
Language has rarely been a neutral vehicle of communication; in colonial India, it functioned as an instrument of control, ideology, and identity. The British administration, while ostensibly engaged in civilizing and educating the colonized, meticulously manipulated linguistic hierarchies to entrench authority. English, elevated to the status of official and judicial language, was not merely a tool of governance—it became a symbol of intellectual legitimacy and social mobility. Indigenous languages, by contrast, were systematically subordinated, fragmented, and recast as vernaculars—a term that subtly suggested parochialism and inferiority. The imposition of English education through Macaulay’s Minute of 1835 was more than a curricular reform; it was a calculated cultural intervention. The production of a class of Indians who were, in Macaulay’s words, “Indian in blood and color, but English in taste,” exemplified a form of linguistic hegemony designed to internalize colonial values. English became the medium through which the colonized were taught to perceive themselves and their traditions through the lens of imperial rationality, often resulting in alienation from indigenous epistemologies. Simultaneously, the colonial state’s treatment of regional languages was riddled with contradictions. While British administrators encouraged the codification of Indian languages, such efforts often stripped them of their oral fluidity and cultural nuance. Sanskrit and Persian, once associated with prestige, were gradually marginalized, while languages like Hindi and Urdu became arenas of communal and political contestation—each championed by different religious and regional groups, further entrenching societal divisions. This reshaping of linguistic order served dual purposes: facilitating administrative efficiency and diffusing dissent. A populace divided along linguistic and communal lines was easier to govern. Moreover, fluency in English became a gatekeeping mechanism for bureaucratic inclusion and economic opportunity, thereby embedding inequality into the fabric of colonial modernity. In essence, language under colonial rule was not just about grammar or vocabulary—it was about access, allegiance, and authority. Understanding this interplay offers a lens into how colonial power was sustained not only through coercion but also through cultural engineering. In post-colonial India, the legacies of this linguistic stratification continue to reverberate in educational policy, social mobility, and debates over language and identity.