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.
According to the passage, why was Macaulay’s Minute significant?
- (a)It promoted multilingual education
- (b)It introduced oral language reforms
- (c)It institutionalized English as a tool of cultural dominance
- (d)It strengthened Sanskrit and Persian education
Answer
Why
Correct — C. The passage says: 'The imposition of English education through Macaulay's Minute of 1835 was more than a curricular reform; it was a calculated cultural intervention.'
It then says that producing a class 'Indian in blood and color, but English in taste', in Macaulay's words, 'exemplified a form of linguistic hegemony designed to internalize colonial values'.
Hegemony is dominance, so the Minute made English a tool of cultural dominance → option (c).
Why the others are wrong
- (a)It promoted multilingual education — The passage says the reverse: English was imposed while indigenous languages were 'systematically subordinated'. The Minute pushed one language, not many.
- (b)It introduced oral language reforms — 'Oral' appears in the passage only where codification stripped Indian languages of their 'oral fluidity' — a separate point that says nothing about the Minute or any reform.
- (d)It strengthened Sanskrit and Persian education — The passage says Sanskrit and Persian 'were gradually marginalized', not strengthened, and it does not link them to the Minute at all.
Concept
A significance question asks for the author's verdict, not for the event itself. Here the verdict arrives as a correction: 'more than a curricular reform' sets aside the plain reading, and 'it was a calculated cultural intervention' gives the real one.
Follow the verdict into the next sentence — 'linguistic hegemony designed to internalize colonial values' — and it names what the Minute did: dominance through language and culture.
The passage never uses the word institutionalized. It is a fair summary of 'the imposition of English education', a policy that built English into schooling, and the rest of option (c) restates the author's verdict on that policy.
Key facts
- The passage dates Macaulay's Minute to 1835.
- Hegemony means dominance, especially of one group or state over others.
- A 'more than X ... it was Y' sentence sets X aside as too small a description and gives Y as the writer's own view.
Study next
Common traps
- Choosing 'introduced oral language reforms' because 'oral' is in the passage — it describes what codification stripped away.
- Choosing 'strengthened Sanskrit and Persian education' because both languages are named — the passage says they were marginalized.
English Q.16 and Q.17 of this shift also draw on this passage, asking about the role of English and the word 'vernaculars'.
A detail question is likewise answered by paraphrase at 19 Sep 2025, 09:00, English Q.18: the passage's 'risk descending into authoritarianism' becomes the keyed 'authoritarian imposition of a singular worldview'.
Related PYQs
No directly related past PYQ was found.