LIKE any other, English is simply a medium of expression and communication. It should by no means be used as some sort of an object to mock or ridicule people with below par proficiency in its usage. However, Pakistan is one such country where English — a second language of foreign origin — enjoys a higher rating than the lingua franca. Unfortunately, the society — for reasons far and more-holds one in esteem for one’s thorough grasp of English by virtue of which much is added to one’s social prestige.
National leaders and influential personalities often have to deliver keynote speeches under intense media spotlight at prestigious forums. It is borne out by the observation that world leaders enjoy the privilege of choice i.e., whether to speak in their native language or in English. Those who prefer their native language to English generally speak with accents and grammatical errors, which is understandable. The speech of General Asim, Chief of Army Staff (COAS), during his recent visit to China is a case in point. It unleashed a vicious smear campaign that categorically implied that speaking grammatically correct English fluently was beyond his reach, insinuating that he was not the right choice for the exalted appointment.
When local languages are belittled, one feels ashamed to converse in one’s mother tongue and instead takes pride in speaking English. Mehta described this predicament: We have made the English language the sole criterion to judge a person’s education, intelligence, desirability and even financial status. When an individual’s expertise, talent and education take a backseat and what remains at the forefront is his/her inability to speak English, it becomes a classist society. Because of our colonial hangover, we give undue importance to a language. Mehta further says that learning a language is merely a part of one’s education, not an education in and of itself. Knowing the English language may give entry to better job opportunities but will not make someone a better human or solve society’s problems.
Similarly, Fanon believes that “the worst assault on a people’s consciousness is linguistic colonization. He notes that the issue of language is of paramount importance to colonial studies because speaking a colonizer’s language means existing absolutely for the colonizer: To speak means to be in a position to use a specific syntax, to grasp the morphology of this or that language, but also to assume a culture, to support the weight of a civilization. Every colonized person—in other words, every person in whose soul an inferiority complex has been created by the death and burial of its local cultural originality” (as cited in Watts, J. L. (2011).
Colonizers, driven by the feeling of a superiority complex, often diminished the importance of indigenous languages, which caused their graduated decline in relative standing/status. The colonialists then rationalized this unequal hierarchical order of languages by vigorously portraying English as a symbol of rationality and civilization, representing progress, unity and modernization. It was an articulated effort by which a teeming mass of ignorant subjects was captivated by the versatility or power of the language of their masters, who, in fact, shaped such a mindset by belittling/downplaying the importance of other local languages as backward and void of characteristics which are the hallmarks of a superior language such as the English language. Thus in this way, it is apparent or implied that only by a sound grasp of English could the colonized absorb the advanced culture and make their dream of achieving progress and development come true…only once they stepped into modern society. This practice of elevating, glorifying and beautifying English and belittling other languages is a typical monolingualism that reveals linguistic imperialism’s nature. As the embodiment of Anglo-American linguistic hegemony, the historical evolution of English linguistic imperialism is closely related to the rise and fall of the hegemony of Britain and America in the existing international political structure (Zeng, 2023).
In Pakistan, colonial heritage still lingers in its most perverted form. The whole idea of “Native” vs. the “Whiteman” was designed to create a binary opposition between “them” and “us,” and its purpose was to produce self-hate in the natives. Once you start hating yourselves, then it is a self-fulfilling prophecy- a phenomenon so glaringly manifested in all walks of life — at a significant cost to national pride and honour. We romanticize Whiteman and see ourselves in inverse relation to them—that was the mission of colonization. British used to call it “Whiteman’s Burden,” and the French termed it “mission pour civilizer,” ie, our mission is to civilize. They mistreated us because they thought we were inferior. No wonder the natives, by and large, accepted their inferiority to the colonial masters as fait accompli.
This essay examines the use of language as an instrument of power in colonial and postcolonial contexts. Language has always played a central role in the political agenda of colonialism and the role of the English language has explicitly been significant in this regard. The most formidable cultural invasion has been in the linguistic sphere of the Indian subcontinent. Even after the departure of the British imperial masters, their Englishness has stayed behind them and has gradually become the most awesome reminder of their legacy. The people of the Indian subcontinent are still living with this colonial legacy. As constructions of a line of distinction based on linguistic discrimination, this legacy has continued reproducing images of ‘Self’ and ‘Other’ of colonizing languages and cultures and colonized languages and cultures.
One is tempted to ask who this ‘Other’ is, which has often been the subject of many literary and political discourses. The ‘Other’ is that person who always remains an outsider to the colonial parameters of acceptability. Significantly, the colonial ‘Other’ is always understood to feel, think and act differently and from whom the colonial Self takes pride in being different. The language of the colonizer becomes associated with power, prestige and success. It carries with it the dual attraction of being the master’s mode of communication and being endowed with the mystery of unintelligibility for the natives. Here, the struggle for power starts to take hold of the colonized, which is the same power that a translator or interpreter for the white master holds for his more ignorant countrymen (Rehman, S. (2013).
In the given context, those who laughed up their sleeves at Gen Asim’s poor pronunciation of English words/a slip of the tongue revealed the inadequacies in their psychological makeup. In fact, they are snobs and suffer from an inferiority complex as they continue to be obsessed with the idea that a flair for spoken and written English establishes one’s credentials as a member of society to be reckoned with. These “members of mutual admiration society” conveniently forgot that Gen Asim’s host was totally riveted on his speech’s agenda and substance. For the entire audience, every word he uttered carried weight and it concerned them the least if his pronunciation left much to be desired. It is improbable that his spoken English, given his military qualifications and exposure, could have become a source of after-dinner amusement. Moreover, it was not lost on them that their guest, a towering military personality, is now the focus of international attention due to his influencing role in reversing the tide of Pakistan’s misfortunes for good. So, the way he spoke was inconsequential, but for shallow people to derive sadistic pleasure born out of ignorance, prejudice and misconceived notions.
—Fida Muhammad is PhD, Professor at SUNY Oneonta, New York; Shafiq Khan is a retired Major of Pakistan Army.
