While English-medium education is seen as a pathway to upward social mobility and a doorway to better career opportunities, it benefits only the small elite population
English is undeniably far more than just a language; its omnipresence has transformed it from a linguistic tool into a system of power and advantage in itself. English has so naturally been established as a “global default” that we often overlook the dominance it holds over our communication. It has evolved to function paradoxically, both as a classificatory criterion that divides people, and as a unifier that binds our linguistically, regionally, and culturally diverse subcontinent together.
Rosemary Salomone (2022), in her work The Rise of English, builds on sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital and uses India as an example to demonstrate how English can be a strategic tool for social mobility, as well as a marker of exclusion. Similarly, Mathew (2018), in his piece ‘Aspiring and Aspiration Shaming’, introduces the concept of “aspiration shaming,” wherein elite social actors dismiss or critique the English-medium schooling aspirations of the non-elites, revealing anxieties about shifting hierarchies. These aspirations are embedded in everyday mothering practices, such as enrolling children in English-medium private schools, investing in after-school English tuitions, and vigilantly overseeing schoolwork at home. For marginalised mothers, these aspirations are a moral and ethical act that helps them negotiate and navigate through poverty, envisioning a better future for their children.
For those with privileged educational backgrounds, fluency in English is often taken for granted and viewed as effortless or automatic. In contrast, for those from non-elite or regional-medium schooling backgrounds, English remains an aspirational goal that demands significant effort and investment. This casual attitude towards English proficiency is also reflected in popular social media content, where students often joke about neglecting English exam preparation because it is viewed as an opportunity to score “freebie marks” with little to no effort. Such representations reinforce the normalisation of English privilege while simultaneously marginalising those for whom it is a hard-won skill. Aspiration shaming and the subtle gatekeeping of English fluency can be seen as interrelated dynamics that reflect broader structural inequalities in access to linguistic as well as cultural capital.
The book Medium of Instruction Policies: Which Agenda? Whose Agenda?, edited by James W. Tollefson and Amy B.M. Tsui, provides a comprehensive analysis of how language policies in education are deeply intertwined with socio-political processes, via diverse case studies. Chapter 9, “Medium of Power: The Question of English in Education in India,” gives us an account of how English education was introduced in India to create an intermediary class that would facilitate smoother administration, eventually leading to the foundation of English language domination. The upper castes treated English-medium education as a knowledge tool, which percolated down to Indian society at both the class as well as caste levels. This gatekeeping and selective access to English-medium education was contested by the lower castes, as they sought inclusion in the mechanics of nation-building. Since English education became a stepping stone to socio-economic advancement, it created a caste-based segregation disguised as a language barrier.
While English-medium education is largely seen as a pathway to upward social mobility and a doorway to better career opportunities, we must acknowledge the unfortunate truth that it benefits only the small elite population that has had the cultural capital of prior exposure to English in a way that can be applied, rather than just a skeletal understanding of the language, which is just enough to score well in exams via rote learning. English-medium education is pedestalised and gold-plated with the superficial promise of social prestige and “modernity,” which is very much out of sync with the actual implementation of policies and pedagogical methods. This essentially creates a dichotomy where English-medium education is a default preference for most, but at the same time, is a ground for division among diverse groups, perpetuating social hierarchies rather than bridging them.
English-medium education is skewed in favour of the privileged with existing access to resources such as well-funded schools and an English-speaking environment that reinforces caste and class divides. The widespread notion that English instruction from a young age guarantees better English skills has been debunked time and again. Pedagogical trends show that for disadvantaged students, foundational literacy in their mother tongue — which is already familiar to them — tends to improve the overall quality of learning.
However, the paradox lies in the fact that while English-medium education is divisive on one hand, it also serves to bridge the communication gap between those from completely different regional backgrounds. The number of private schools in rural India has ballooned, with many private as well as government schools now offering English-medium instruction. Although teachers in government schools are adequately trained, certified, and qualified to teach, private school children still tend to perform better overall. This difference in performance could at least partly be attributed to the disparity in infrastructure.
Research advocates that children learn best in their mother tongue, with additional languages being introduced gradually rather than right from the start. Despite evidence supporting mother-tongue instruction, many governments worldwide implement assimilationist language policies that prioritise dominant languages — English being one in this case. This has led to what Skutnabb-Kangas (2000) calls “silent ethnocide,” where Indigenous languages and cultures are gradually erased through formal education. In India, the allure of English has dominated education, and this language barrier, combined with poor infrastructure, contributes to high dropout rates. This challenges the “maximum exposure” myth, which is a fallacy at best. Yet, we must not treat the mother-tongue-based language model, backed by reliable scholarly conclusions, as a one-size-fits-all strategy, because it might not work unless it is regionally adapted or modified to fit students’ needs.
A common neighbourhood school where multilingualism would thrive alongside the acquisition of English as a practical skill — rather than a superior one that serves only social prestige — is more likely to benefit marginalised students. Using activities that integrate students’ home languages with English, as well as hands-on materials like newspapers and advertisements, are changes that could facilitate better language learning outcomes. Teacher-focused changes, including training in the psycho-social and linguistic aspects of English language use in students’ daily lives to create inclusive classroom environments, are likely to be more meaningful. Some of India’s English Language Teaching (ELT) methods are overly dependent on grammar-translation and rote learning, with minimal focus on meaningful communication.
The Three Language Formula, an excellent step by the Modi government, introduced to promote mother-tongue-based multilingualism while ensuring students gain proficiency in Hindi and English, has been advocated by numerous scholars. What is interesting is that marginalised communities view English as a tool for empowerment and upward social mobility. Interestingly, studies suggest that a disproportionate emphasis on English-medium education has deepened marginalisation.
The literature on English education in India unequivocally points towards a multilingual approach as being the best strategy to overcome linguistic-based disparities in education. This ultimately boosts the overall return on investment in education in terms of better career opportunities and creative, application-based learning. It would be interesting and practical for future research to explore how we can utilise and incorporate digital and AI tools into teaching methodology for more efficient and multi-modal learning. For example, smartboards can be used to teach a large number of students at the same time, rather than trying to micro-invest in every child from the beginning. Teachers could use programmes like Duolingo as creative ways to teach children effectively by gamifying the course content.
Additionally, it would be crucial to restructure teacher training programmes to equip teachers with the necessary skills to contextualise learning, rather than rigidly sticking to textbook-based rote learning practices. An example of this could be drama-based or role-play formats of teaching. Another innovative technique could be asking teachers to keep reflective journals that document what teaching strategies worked or didn’t and why, in order to identify and improve pedagogical methods. This doesn’t mean certain strategies must be discarded outright — they could be appropriately modified, and if they don’t work in one region, they might in another.
Lastly, a relatively under-researched aspect of learning is the role of groupism in diverse environments and its effects on learning. Educational institutions have increasingly strived to make their campuses diverse for inclusivity. However, even in diverse institutions, students tend to stick to their own class, region, and language-based cliques, which renders the attempts at learning from diverse peers futile. Does groupism add an extra layer of social pressure to speak a certain language to be accepted and treated a certain way on campus, or does it create conditions of motivation in students to enhance their language skills to fit in better with their peers? The answer to these questions will vary based on a multiplicity of factors, but they are crucial to quality learning.
