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 contradiction does the passage point out in British treatment of Indian languages?
- (a)English was discouraged for administration
- (b)Persian was elevated over Hindi
- (c)Codification preserved linguistic purity
- (d)Codification ignored oral and cultural nuances
Answer
Why
Correct — D. The passage flags the contradiction itself — the treatment of regional languages 'was riddled with contradictions' — and states it in the next sentence:
'While British administrators encouraged the codification of Indian languages, such efforts often stripped them of their oral fluidity and cultural nuance.'
Support that damaged what it supported: codification that lost the oral and cultural nuances → option (d).
Why the others are wrong
- (a)English was discouraged for administration — The passage says the opposite: English was 'elevated to the status of official and judicial language'. Nothing in it discourages English.
- (b)Persian was elevated over Hindi — The passage says Sanskrit and Persian 'were gradually marginalized', while Hindi and Urdu became arenas of contestation. Nothing elevates Persian over Hindi.
- (c)Codification preserved linguistic purity — Borrows codification from the right sentence and reverses its effect: the passage says codification stripped languages of fluidity and nuance. It never mentions purity.
Concept
A contradiction question wants two things the passage sets against each other. The signal here is While, which concedes one fact and sets a second against it.
The first half is support: administrators 'encouraged the codification of Indian languages'. The second is its cost: the same efforts 'stripped them of their oral fluidity and cultural nuance'.
The contradiction is support for the languages that damaged them.
Option (d)'s ignored is milder than the passage's 'stripped them of': the passage says the nuance was removed, not merely overlooked. The option still keeps both halves of the contrast, codification and the lost nuance, which is why it is the match.
Key facts
- 'Riddled with contradictions' means full of contradictions.
- To codify is to arrange rules into a fixed, systematic written form.
- 'While X, Y' can concede X and set Y against it, as 'although' does.
- The passage says Sanskrit and Persian, 'once associated with prestige', were gradually marginalized.
Study next
Common traps
- Choosing 'Codification preserved linguistic purity' because it names codification — it reverses what the passage says codification did.
- Reading 'once associated with prestige' as elevation — the same sentence says Sanskrit and Persian were gradually marginalized.
The same reversal trap appears at 19 Sep 2025, 09:00, English Q.19: the passage says ethical concerns arise before legal clarity, the key keeps that order, and 'Laws often precede moral considerations' flips it.
English Q.18 and Q.20 of this shift draw on the same passage.
Related PYQs
No directly related past PYQ was found.