Reconsidering English Studies in Indian Higher Education 9781138794641, 9781315759104

570 113 2MB

English Pages [231] Year 2014

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Reconsidering English Studies in Indian Higher Education
 9781138794641, 9781315759104

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
List of figures
List of tables
Authors’ preface
PART I Background
1 Historicizing English Studies in India
2 Higher education policy and English Studies in India
PART II Professional concerns
3 The profession of English Studies 1: policy, pedagogy, scholarship, and the market
4 The profession of English Studies 2: employment, management, and the multilingual context
PART III Students
5 From country to institution: framing statistics and a student survey
6 Analysis of the undergraduate survey in Delhi
PART IV Comparative perspectives
7 Management ethos and academic work: the view on English Studies from the United Kingdom
8 Debates in English Studies in the United States and India
9 English Studies in India, global English Studies and globalization
Appendix: Table presentation of survey questionnaire results
Index

Citation preview

Reconsidering English Studies in Indian Higher Education

This book examines the status of English Studies in India, the aspirations pinned on the subject by students, teachers, policy-makers and society in general, and asks how these are addressed at the higher education level. It presents analytical background discussions of the history and policy environment, and offers open-ended, multi-faceted and multi-vocal accounts of particular aspects of contemporary Indian English Studies, including curriculum, pedagogy, research, employment, relation to Indian vernaculars and translation studies. Reconsidering English Studies in Indian Higher Education is an invaluable source for anyone interested in: •• •• •• ••

••

The relevant histories and higher education policies Professional concerns, including employment, management, teaching and scholarly practices, and negotiations in terms of socio-cultural life Student attitudes, experiences and aspirations Management ethos and academic work in a comparative perspective, informed by the situation and debates in the United Kingdom and United States of America The context of global English Studies and globalization.

The book will be of primary interest to academic readers such as students, teachers and researchers in English Studies in India, Britain and wherever the discipline is pursued at the higher education level. Suman Gupta is Professor and Chair in Literature and Cultural History at The Open University. Richard Allen is Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at The Open University. Subarno Chattarji is Associate Professor in the Department of English at the University of Delhi. Supriya Chaudhuri is Professor Emeritus in the Department of English at Jadavpur University, Kolkata.

Routledge Research in Higher Education

Integrative Learning International research and practice Edited by Daniel Blackshields, James Cronin, Bettie Higgs, Shane Kilcommins, Marian McCarthy and Anthony Ryan Developing Creativities in Higher Music Education International perspectives and practices Edited by Pamela Burnard Academic Governance Disciplines and Policy Jenny M. Lewis Refocusing the Self in Higher Education A Phenomenological Perspective Glen L. Sherman Activity Theory, Authentic Learning and Emerging Technologies Towards a transformative higher education pedagogy Edited by Vivienne Bozalek, Dick Ng’ambi, Denise Wood, Jan Herrington, Joanne Hardman and Alan Amory Understanding HIV and STI Prevention for College Students Edited by Leo Wilton, Robert T. Palmer, and Dina C. Maramba

From Vocational to Professional Education Educating for social welfare Jens-Christian Smeby and Molly Sutphen Academic Building in Net-based Higher Education Moving beyond learning Edited by Trine Fossland, Helle Mathiasen and Mariann Solberg University Access and Success Capabilities, diversity and social justice Merridy Wilson-Strydom Reconsidering English Studies in Indian Higher Education Suman Gupta, Richard Allen, Subarno Chattarji and Supriya Chaudhuri Globally Networked Teaching in the Humanities Theories and Practices Edited by Alexandra Schultheis Moore and Sunka Simon Higher Education Access and Choice for Latino Students Critical Findings and Theoretical Perspectives Edited by Patricia A. Pérez and Miguel Ceja

Reconsidering English Studies in Indian Higher Education Suman Gupta, Richard Allen, Subarno Chattarji and Supriya Chaudhuri

First published 2015 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2015 Suman Gupta, Richard Allen, Subarno Chattarji and Supriya Chaudhuri The right of Suman Gupta, Richard Allen, Subarno Chattarji and Supriya Chaudhuri to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by him/her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Gupta, Suman, 1966– Reconsidering English studies in Indian higher education / Suman Gupta, Richard Allen, Subarno Chattarji and Supriya Chaudhuri. pages cm. – (Routledge research in higher education) Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. English philology–Study and teaching (Higher)–India. 2. English literature–Study and teaching (Higher)–India. I. Allen, Richard, 1946 June 23– II. Chattarji, Subarno. III. Chaudhuri, Supriya. IV. Title. PE68.I4G87 2015 420.71′054–dc23 2014043523 ISBN: 978–1–138–79464–1 (hbk) ISBN: 978–1–315–75910–4 (ebk) Typeset in Galliard by Swales & Willis Ltd, Exeter, Devon, UK

Contents

List of figures List of tables Authors’ preface PART I

vii viii ix

Background

1

1 Historicizing English Studies in India

3

S U M A N G U P TA

2 Higher education policy and English Studies in India

22

S U P R I YA C H A U D H U R I

PART II

Professional concerns

39

3 The profession of English Studies 1: policy, pedagogy, scholarship, and the market

41

S U M A N G U P TA A N D R I C H A R D A L L E N

4 The profession of English Studies 2: employment, management, and the multilingual context

59

R I C H A R D A L L E N A N D S U M A N G U P TA

PART III

Students

77

5 From country to institution: framing statistics and a student survey

79

S U M A N G U P T A , M I L E N A K A T S A R S K A , A N D D O N K A K E S K I N O VA

vi  Contents 6 Analysis of the undergraduate survey in Delhi

98

S U B A R N O C H AT TA R J I , M I L E N A K AT S A R S K A , A N D D O N K A K E S K I N O VA

PART IV

Comparative perspectives

133

7 Management ethos and academic work: the view on English Studies from the United Kingdom

135

RICHARD ALLEN

8 Debates in English Studies in the United States and India

152

S U B A R N O C H AT TA R J I A N D R I C H A R D A L L E N

9 English Studies in India, global English Studies and globalization

171

S U M A N G U P TA

Appendix: Table presentation of survey questionnaire results Index

186 214

Figures

5.1 Type-wise distribution of degree-awarding universities/ university-level institutions, December 2011 5.2 State-wise universities and university-level institutions in the country, December 2011 5.3 Student enrolment by stages in higher education, 2010–2011 5.4 Faculty-wise student enrolment in higher education, 2010–2011 6.1 Category analysis, all respondents 6.2 Education background, all respondents 6.3 Mobility, all respondents 6.4 Family monthly income 6.5 Language usage, communication 6.6 Language competence 6.7 Initial expectations of/from ES courses 6.8 Initial expectations: only ‘true’ for Honours and not-Honours 6.9 Expectations fulfilment 6.10 Expectations: principal component analysis 6.11 Interests, all respondents 6.12 Interests, Honours and not-Honours 6.13 Course descriptions 6.14 Study practices 6.15 Examination/testing 6.16 Awareness of ES generally 6.17 Awareness of scholarship 6.18 Skills students feel they have already 6.19 Skills, ‘have now’ and ‘need to have’ 6.20 Career goals 6.21 Employer

80 81 84 86 100 103 103 104 106 106 108 109 110 111 112 113 115 116 117 118 119 121 122 123 123

Tables

5.1 Distribution of households and population by MPCE class in India, 2004–2005 5.2 Age by single year, India 5.3 Age by single year, Delhi NCT 5.4 Enrolment in universities, colleges and other institutions 5.5 Enrolment at undergraduate level in major disciplines/subjects 5.6 Percentage enrolment at undergraduate level in major disciplines/subjects, 2011–2012 5.7 Percentage of enrolment in BA and BSc with or without Honours, 2011–2012 5.8 Faculty-wise distribution of undergraduate students (regular) at Delhi University, 2011–2012 5.9 Delhi University regular students in BA programmes, total regular undergraduates, 2011–2012 5.10 Numbers speaking second and third languages by age-group, sex and rural/urban region 5.11 Enrolment at PhD, MPhil and post-graduate level in major disciplines/subjects, 2010–2011 6.1 Year-wise percentages, all respondents 6.2 Age demographic, all respondents 6.3 Gender ratio, all respondents 6.4 Category percentages, DU respondents 6.5 DU admissions data, 2010–2011 6.6 School attendance generally in Delhi, 2010–2011 6.7 Family monthly income 6.8 Financial support for HE 6.9 Honours, not-Honours: percentage

83 83 84 85 87 87 87 89 89 90 91 98 99 99 101 101 104 105 105 107

Authors’ preface

Discussions of English Studies in Indian higher education provide a useful index of social developments in India since the 1980s. For the purposes of this book, English Studies consists in the university-level study of Anglophone literature, language and linguistics, and cultural studies, while bearing in mind that in India, as elsewhere, the academic discipline of ‘English’ has conventionally centred on literary study. Various kinds of crises in the discipline have been perceived and formulated and acted upon over the last four decades, with effects on both pedagogy and scholarship. On the one hand, these anxieties have occasionally encouraged disinvestment from English Studies; on the other hand, these have also encouraged expansion of English Studies in a manner appropriate to the Indian context. There have been crises arising from reckonings with and attempts to institutionalize Literary Theory and particularly Postcolonial Theory within the discipline. These enabled interrogations of the colonial legacy of the discipline (traditionally a study of primarily British literature and some American literature) and re-articulations of its role in postcolonial India – in many ways a reckoning with the postcolonial condition of India generally. The prominent place of Indian English literature in the global market and in postcolonial studies worldwide has naturally been of particular interest in Indian academia. There have been crises arising from slippages between the elite ideology underpinning disciplinary pursuits and the realities of social domination and marginalization in post-independence India. Researchers and pedagogues have sought to address these by examining how class, gender, and caste prejudices have been embedded in academic practices to do with English Studies. Anxieties about the social inequalities that are perpetuated through English proficiency, and the continuing domination of the English language in the multilingual Indian context, have been confronted variously. Curricula and academic research have also been responsive to the noteworthy growth in varieties of Indian literary productions in English (particularly in popular forms and in translations from other Indian languages) along with the significant expansion of the publishing industry (with investments from multinational corporations and independent firms). Every such expansion of pedagogic and scholarly remit has, naturally, also involved a redefinition of

x  Authors’ preface English Studies which tests provision and arrangements in higher education institutions. Inevitably, each step is dogged by heated arguments and perceived crises. The sheer scope of what English Studies now needs to contain in India seems to put pressure on disciplinary integrity – arguably, another kind of crisis. As the Indian state and economy positioned themselves vis-à-vis globalization processes, the English language appeared to be grounded not merely in the domestic and postcolonial markets but very much more widely. Relatedly, a much-noted growth in demand for English language proficiency and skills from constituencies which had traditionally been fenced off from English education became apparent. At the same time, changes in the perceived role of the university and the gradual corporatization of the university globally (and, for this book, particularly in India) have put increasing emphasis on education for employment. These developments define the on-going crisis of English Studies in Indian higher education: essentially in being pushed to incorporate a more applied orientation within its structures at the expense of academic specialization. Crudely, this could be seen as instantiating less investment in academic linguistic and literary studies and more investment in English language teaching and applied linguistics (especially in supporting enterprise). The social imperatives that seem to drive reconsideration of the discipline and the appropriate scholarly response are yet to be fully gauged. A period of change in English Studies is currently afoot, attended by the predictable doubts and perceptions of crisis. This book is presented as an intervention at this troubled juncture of English Studies in Indian higher education. It offers an account of the past and current condition of the discipline, and speculates accordingly on its prospects. Several distinct strategies are adopted here to that end, which are explored in four parts. The first part, ‘Background’, consists of two chapters, respectively on the history and historicizing of English Studies in India and on the education policy environment which bears upon the discipline at present. The former does not offer a straightforwardly historical narrative of English Studies in India. Rather, it examines a range of historicist accounts of the academic discipline from the 1970s to 2010, and unpacks the particular emphases and historiographical assumptions in these. Some space is also devoted to clarifying the ‘crisis debates’ that were particularly concerned with English in the 1990s, and outlining broader social developments thereafter which are relevant to the scholarly pursuits in question. Underpinning the accounts and debates charted in the first chapter are moves in education policy which are taken up in the following chapter. Several policymaking directions are relevant here: policies specific to English Studies (at school and university level), education policy generally (at all levels), and language and culture policies. These are further intersected by national initiatives, regional initiatives, and institution-specific initiatives. The second chapter focuses primarily on national-level policy making, noting regional and institution-specific moves occasionally and in an illustrative fashion. A broad mapping of this complex territory is followed by analysis of current and prospective directions. The recommendations made by the Curriculum Development Committee for English Studies to the University Grants Commission (2001) is the last policy-document specifically

Authors’ preface xi addressed to the university level for the discipline, so that offers a marker to assess the situation preceding and following it. The second part, ‘Professional concerns’, explores a range of specific areas that are seminal to the institutional life of English Studies in Indian universities (i.e. to professing the discipline): curriculum, pedagogy, research, employment, relation to Indian vernaculars, translation studies, relation between literary studies and linguistics, etc. These are all issues which divide commentators along diverse, often contradictory, lines. It therefore seemed to the authors that this area is best addressed in an open-ended dialogic mode rather than in a mono-vocal manner from a single perspective. To that end two workshops were organized, drawing in teachers, researchers, policy-makers, employers, publishers, and university administrators. The two chapters (3 and 4) in this part are reports of these discussions with concluding commentaries by the authors. The third part, ‘Students’, focuses on student perspectives of and attitudes to the discipline. This is largely based on an in-depth survey of about 600 undergraduate students engaging with English programmes/courses in a range of higher education institutions in Delhi. The results are presented here, analysed and contextualized. The survey questionnaire with tabulated results appears in the Appendix to this book. The first (chapter 5) of two chapters in this part summarizes existing data, at the national level and at state and institutional levels, which can be used to contextualize the survey results. In particular, available statistics about the spread of higher education institutions, demographic indicators of their student populations, and subjects studied are outlined. The limitations of the Delhi-focus of the survey are discussed, and it is hoped that further such surveys in other regions of India will be undertaken in the future. Chapter 6 then presents the key findings of the survey, using graphs to highlight the patterns in the material tabulated in the Appendix and considering also some qualitative material elicited from the responses. Insights into the composition of the student body, students’ expectations of and interests in English Studies, their experience of the courses that they are engaged in, and their longer-term aspirations are charted here. The fourth part, ‘Comparative perspectives’, places English Studies in Indian higher education in terms of the wider geopolitical purchase of the discipline. The first of three chapters here (chapter 7) considers education policy and restructurings of the university sector in the UK from the perspective of English Studies. It becomes apparent in the discussion here that many of the concerns in the Indian context which featured in Part II have also been germane to the UK context, especially in relation to the expansion of the sector and moves towards ‘vocationalization’ and ‘marketization’. Chapter 8 considers debates about the profession of English in the USA which are relevant to the prevailing situation in India. The perennial crisis in the field in terms of curricula, pedagogy, and the professoriate are examined, and the drive towards the creation of ‘world class’ universities in India noted. Finally, chapter 9 explores how and to what extent the global remit of the discipline (global English Studies) has impinged on scholarly and pedagogic practices in India – both for the study of literature and culture and for

xii  Authors’ preface language and linguistics. It is observed that contrary drives are apparent in the Indian context, on the one hand pushing towards registering global diversities and on the other delving national diversities through English Studies. The role of global education service providers is also noted, and the chapter concludes with some tentative predictions about future prospects for the discipline. The authors feel that the four parts together offer a reasonably rounded view of the condition of English Studies in India at present, albeit with limitations that are inevitable in contemplating an extremely diverse and large context. This account of the historical and policy background of, professional investments in and students’ perspectives of, and comparative insights into the discipline’s practices and structures in India could inform further discussion in a range of directions – scholarly and pedagogic, education policy-centred, administrative and institutional, and ultimately critical in a broad sense. This book is the result of a collaborative research project which was conducted in the period 2012–2014. The funding for this was gratefully received from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (UK), and the project as a whole was administered from The Open University (UK). The authors are indebted particularly to G. J. V. Prasad for organizing the first workshop (which features in chapter 3) in Jawaharlal Nehru University, and to Mohammed Asaduddin for the workshop (chapter 4) in Jamia Millia Islamia. With them, as the project’s advisory board members, Tapan Basu, Saugata Bhaduri, Anuradha Ghosh, Makarand Paranjape, and Harish Trivedi guided various stages of the project deftly. The most significant contributions to the project and therefore this volume came from all participants in the two workshops (they are named at the beginnings of chapters 3 and 4), the teachers in various Delhi-based institutions who administered the survey questionnaire, and the students who responded to it (the substance of chapters 5 and 6 and the Appendix). The authors are also grateful for comments made by readers appointed by Routledge to assess the book proposal. Shortcomings in the following pages are entirely the authors’ responsibility.

Part I

Background

This page intentionally left blank

1 Historicizing English Studies in India Suman Gupta

Institutional histories of English Studies The current complexities of the situation of English Studies (ES) in Indian Higher Education (HE) derive from a correspondingly complex institutional history – i.e. the history of the career of ES as an academic discipline or profession in Indian universities, colleges and related institutions. A straightforward narrative of the latter would be a voluminous enterprise and outside the scope of a single chapter. The following remarks are therefore more about different phases of historicizing the discipline than a straight historical narrative. In any case, the phases of historicizing are arguably more indicative of recent developments than a straight historical narrative could be. The project of historicizing the institutional practice of ES in India is, as argued below, relatively recent. So far such histories have largely centred on literary pedagogy and scholarship, and there is no single story which can be unambiguously taken from them and speedily summarized. The facts garnered in these histories have generally been selected for and subjected to varying interpretations depending on the ideological climate in which historicizing was undertaken. Naturally, institutional histories of ES have appeared in various contexts and those in India have often been in conversation with them, especially with those in the UK and USA – traditionally dominant and trend-setting contexts for this area. It is expedient to keep some general features of such historicizing in view. Institutional histories have typically appeared amidst interrogations of the discipline’s practices and ideological presumptions, or amidst perceptions of ‘crisis’. Historicizing has therefore had a dual thrust: on the one hand, to consolidate the current position of the discipline against questioning and doubts; on the other hand, to respond to questions and doubts by reconfiguring the discipline. In other words, historicizing ES and the underpinning historiographical assumptions have often been equally foregrounded here. History and historiography have pressed upon each other with a sense that telling the history has urgent and material implications in the present, and therefore the historiographical assumptions need to be considered carefully and exposed. Unsurprisingly, a significant number of such histories appeared over the period in which Literary Theory and the politics of identity came to be debated and embedded in North American

4  Gupta and British academia, from the 1970s to the end of the 1990s. Their publication was indicative of the pressures exerted by Theory on the academic profession of English. The project of historicizing ES in India was also intensively engaged during this period and with a not dissimilar thrust. It is not my intention to give an account of British and North American institutional histories of the discipline here; however, a brief note on contextual similarities and differences between them does provide a relevant perspective for similar Indian projects. British institutional histories of ES (say, from Palmer 1965 onwards, including Baldick 1983, Eagleton 1983, Doyle 1989, Dixon 1991, Crawford 1992, Court 1992, Miller 1997) have generally assumed a direct relationship between socio-political developments, intellectual Zeitgeist and the contents and institutional practices of the discipline. In other words, these have assumed that conservative, liberal or radical turns of wider social import were manifest within the curricular and scholarly choices made in ES, and the practices of teaching and researching. By and large, North American histories of the discipline (from Ohmann 1976 onwards, including Graff 1987, Mailloux 1989, Scholes 1998) have explicitly foregrounded the mediatory role of the academic institution, and teased out the mores of the academic profession as it works between the ostensible shape of the discipline and large social forces. The impulse behind these American histories was a pressing need to justify, explain and intervene within the academic profession (its structures, arrangements and practices), rather than to chart the socio-historical development of the discipline and then see what can be inferred for the profession’s current condition. Also, British historicist scholarship evinced relatively little interest in the question of literacy in ES during that intensive period of historicizing (only occasionally straying into institutional histories of English language teaching [ELT], e.g. Howatt 1984). However, in North America this was a key and all too current concern in view of the importance of freshmen courses in composition in HE, and occupied a significant place in disciplinary histories (in those referred above, and squarely in, e.g. Applebee 1974, Berlin 1984, Horner 1985, Kitzhaber 1990, Winterowd 1998, Miller 2010). Indian historicizations of the discipline have traced a path that is aware of such British and North American researches: given the British set-up of the discipline in India, these have naturally been particularly attentive to British institutional histories; at the same time, the impetus for historicizing ES in India has often found closer connection with North American accounts. Attempts at historicizing ES have naturally taken place for other contexts (e.g. Engler and Haas 2000 and Haas and Engler 2008 for continental Europe, Johnson 1996 for South Africa), but these have been neglected in Indian histories of ES.

Crisis debates It was predominantly in the late 1980s and 1990s that the project of historicizing ES in India acquired a sense of urgency. It was not that scholars had not attempted this earlier (later in this chapter I touch upon earlier scholarship), but

Historicizing English Studies in India 5 in this period the project became a necessary response to a perceived ‘crisis’ in the discipline. Several edited volumes attempted both to articulate the crisis and respond to it (Joshi 1991; Rajan 1992; Marathe, Ramanan and Bellarmine 1993; and, a bit later, Tharu ed. 1997). The debates recorded in these – I call these the ‘crisis debates’ hereafter – clarify the impetuses behind historicizing Indian ES, both before and after. The perception of crisis in the discipline consisted in several linked concerns. With the colonial British model at its base, ES in India at the time really meant English literary studies. One of the concerns was about the increasingly anachronistic content of institutional ES in India, devoted predominantly to British canonical authors explored in an Arnoldian/Leavisite liberal humanist vein, with occasional forays into American literature and New Criticism. The limitations of the curriculum were exacerbated by ritualized teaching practices, dated textbooks and dubious guidebooks, and rigid assessment systems. Skirmishes with Indian literature in English, ‘Commonwealth Literature’ or continental European texts in translation, and Marxist criticism took place unevenly around that firm canonical centre. The institutional pursuit of ES appeared to be entirely unresponsive to social circumstances and developments in India. At the same time, and sharpening the sense of crisis, it was evident that in the Anglophone heartland of the USA and UK the discipline had been subjected to ideological interrogation and rendered responsive to social circumstances for at least three decades already. Within the precincts of British and American ES some of the core conventions of pedagogy and scholarship were being challenged. It was of particular interest that the disciplinarily dominant heartland was, paradoxically, questioning its dominance and extending a critical gaze to its ‘margins’ and ‘others’ – both within (in terms of race, gender, sexuality) and without (towards postcolonial contexts). These developments offered conceptual frameworks which could inform interrogation of the discipline within India. In articulating the crisis, the debates in question called upon such frameworks – but with trepidation. Several contributors to the volumes cited above, including their editors, wondered whether they weren’t simply importing the crisis into India from the USA and UK, thus ironically reiterating disciplinary subordination. However, those frameworks also clarified the distinctly local and pressing character of the crisis of ES in India. This crisis had to do with social stratifications along the lines of class, caste and gender, with complexities embedded in Indian histories and traditions. The contested position of the English language in India was an especially significant factor. Social contradictions were manifested in various levels of institutional alienation and repression in the ES classroom (Tharu 1997 analysed the various kinds of alienation involved). ES classrooms in universities were naturally microcosms of larger society, and social conflicts were reflected within classrooms. However, the discipline offered no way of addressing or engaging with these conflicts; on the contrary, the content and practices of ES seemed designed to elide and silence them. The nitty-gritty of class and caste and gender divides, of conflicts between urban and rural constituencies, between metropolises and provinces, between conservative and liberal attitudes, between more and less ‘prestigious’ institutions

6  Gupta were reported feelingly in the above-mentioned volumes. Notably, for instance, Alok Rai (1991) reported on teaching experience ‘in the provinces’, Anjana Desai (1993) on teaching in ‘non-metropolitan areas’, Aniket Jaaware (1997) on why ‘subaltern students’ (from rural backgrounds) chose to be silent in his classes. The presence of these larger social fissures in the ES classroom was accentuated by two factors: firstly, the different levels of language proficiency of students according to their backgrounds, and the higher cultural capital of English relative to the Indian vernaculars; and secondly, the emphasis on literature as the core of ES, which tended to dissociate the classroom from the immediate cultural environments of teachers and students. Linguistic and cultural disparities and the consequent anomie seemed particularly sharply focalized in the university ES classroom – that was the crisis. This crisis had both a linguistic and a literary dimension. Investments in the English language for the perpetuation of inequalities in India, through both educational policy and pedagogic practice, have received systematic attention since the crisis debates (e.g., Ramanathan 1999, Faust and Nagar 2001). In the late 1980s, the ES crisis debaters offered mainly impressionistic first-hand observations on the enormous linguistic disparities – mapped on to disparities of class and background – that they found in classrooms. These translated into concerns about linguistic literacy, and the critical fissure generated by inadequate proficiency in English for a discipline which was institutionally centred on literary study; symptomatically, the pressure of linguistic literacy fractured the institutional legitimacy of ES and spawned an informal sector. This was noted often, for instance by Rajeswari Sunder Rajan: Since the demand for functional, specific, goal-directed language pedagogy is reflected only in a few school and university syllabi – in most cases it is the ‘classic’ texts, including Shakespeare, that are used for imparting language skills – there is a trend towards such teaching moving out of the academic arena of schools and colleges. The mushrooming of bazaar institutes offering crash courses in spoken English and for a variety of other ‘real life’ communication purposes – interviews, exams, business correspondence – is an indication of the marketplace response to this need. (Rajan 1992: 19) In fact, the crisis debates consisted simply in first foregrounding (merely stating what had usually been deliberately unspoken) and then theorizing the various levels at which institutional ES and Indian social realities confronted each other and slipped. This seems an opportune moment to digress briefly from the crisis debates and comment on the relation between language/linguistic study and literary study in Indian ES. By and large, in HE ES programmes literary study was conventionally centred so that language proficiency was taken for granted – the presumption of an adequate level of proficiency was deeply engrained in institutional arrangements for the discipline. Even those with a commitment to ELT

Historicizing English Studies in India 7 (English language teaching) therefore felt a need to embrace the literary emphasis. In the wake of the crisis debates, with growing evidence of market demand for English literacy rather than literature, the need for ELT at all levels began to be pressed from the late 1990s. Exchanges on this front were between two distinct camps: those who advocated retaining literature at the core of ES and those who maintained that language pedagogy should be given separate and greater emphasis. This debate seems to have been resolved in favour of the latter camp at the time of writing this (2014), at the least insofar as government policy goes, though HE ES departments have responded unevenly to policy encouragement of ELT. On a distinct and related note: the field of English linguistics outside the specific concern of language teaching (a part of applied linguistics) didn’t figure significantly in the crisis debates, or in the disciplinary histories that appeared amidst and in response to them. This was not because academic linguistics was not pursued in India. Insofar as linguistics in India has attended to English, socio-linguistics and descriptive linguistics have fed academic pursuits variously. However, these were marginalized in the crisis debates as in the institutional formation of ES, and were not regarded as having the ideological thrust that the study of literature in English and language teaching had. Since much academic linguistics has been critical of conventional English language teaching practices on ideological grounds, it is possible that the over-emphasis of language teaching and the vested interests of the ELT industry (state and corporate) have contributed to the marginalization of academic linguistics in Indian ES. English language proficiency appears, curiously, to be increasingly regarded as a purely functional matter which can be disengaged from everyday life and social contradictions. The points made in this brief digression are picked up in some of the following chapters, and I return to them in a more leisurely fashion in the last chapter. Back to the crisis: by the later 1990s it seemed that even if the crisis hadn’t been overcome it had begun to be addressed in conceptually satisfying ways. In Subject to Change (1997) editor Susie Tharu noted ‘the confidence and theoretical rigour with which we are now investigating local contexts and our specific experiences as teachers and students’ (p. 2). It was evident that the early 1990s crisis debates had opened ES in India to analysis which was grounded in Indian social circumstances. The interrogative moves of Theory and identity politics in the US and UK had not been transplanted or mimicked but activated in distinctive ways in the Indian academic context. The decisive roles that colonial and postcolonial educational policies and institutional mores played in the Indian disciplinary formation were beginning to be accounted. The particularities of gender, class and caste – notably Tharu’s volume included two incisive analyses of Indian humanities from a Dalit perspective – were also beginning to be factored into the profession of the discipline in India. English language teaching and the relationship of English to the vernaculars were beginning to receive sustained scholarly and pedagogic attention. The crisis debates had responded satisfactorily to the crisis by simply articulating and theorizing it without laying it to rest. In that process, historicist analyses of ES in India played a significant role.

8  Gupta

Historiographical determinations The project of historicizing ES in India was part of the crisis debates, and the resulting publications were particularly sensitive to the bearing of the institutional history on the present condition of the discipline. That history was particularly foregrounded in Svati Joshi ed. Rethinking English (1991), in which: Kumkum Sanghari explored gender politics in nineteenth-century English education policy and practice; Tejaswani Niranjana took up the history of translation over the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries; Jasodhara Bagchi discussed the influence of ES on nineteenth-century Bengali nationalist consciousness; Susie Tharu and Harish Trivedi delved the early relationship between English literature and literatures in Indian languages; Aijaz Ahmad, Badri Raina, and Alok Rai noted continuities from the establishment of ES in the colonial period to decolonization and after. These publications, and others like these at the time, suggested that the current crisis-ridden condition of the discipline could be explained from a historicist perspective, and, at the same time, doing so would render the discipline healthily relevant. This expectation had precedents. For instance, Kalyan K. Chatterjee’s English Education in India (1976) – of which more later – had concluded by anticipating a ‘change over to the vernacular from a constructively receding supremacy of English by the processes of transformation and transfusion’ (p. 197). Similarly, a paper by S. Nagarajan on ‘The Decline of English Studies in India’ (1981) traced that decline to the beginnings of ES in the midnineteenth century (also citing neglect of vernaculars) and expected historicist awareness to herald change. These could have been early contributions to the crisis debate which heated up later in the 1980s – and yet, they were not quite so. In the intervening decade the historicizing project, undertaken to both understand and act upon the crisis, came up with historiographical assumptions and methodological decisions which hadn’t been clearly espoused earlier. The mediations that, in the course of the 1980s, reached towards historicizing ES amidst the perceived crisis involved a convergence from two conceptual directions. On the one hand, they drew upon Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978) and the effervescence (and gradual institutionalization) of Literary Theory and identity politics – particularly via postcolonial theory – in North American and British academia. On the other hand, they called upon the researches of the Subaltern Studies collective (in volumes edited by Ranajit Guha which started appearing from 1982), addressed to Indian imperialist and nationalist historiography. In Indian academic circles, and thereafter more widely, the terms ‘historiography’ and ‘subaltern’ acquired renewed currency as a consequence. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak played a significant role in the convergence of the two directions, and in foregrounding the notion of ‘crisis’ with a broad humanities remit and a narrower ES focus. As far as historiographical principles went, Subaltern Studies sought to counter the assumptions of elite colonial and nationalist histories by focusing on subaltern agency and subjectivity in Antonio Gramsci’s sense (‘Notes on Italian History’, 1934–5, in Gramsci 1971): as Guha put it in Subaltern Studies 1, this meant focusing on ‘the contribution made by the people on their own, that is, independently of the elite to

Historicizing English Studies in India 9 the making and development of nationalism’ (Guha 1982: 3). The project entailed writing such history, and at the same time interrogating elite historiography which has suppressed or pacified subaltern constituencies. Spivak’s first contribution to the project appeared in Subaltern Studies 4 (1985), ‘Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography’, interrogating some of the conceptual underpinnings of Subaltern Studies itself. More importantly, this also implicitly performed a bridging of Literary Theory and Subaltern Studies. There followed effectively a convergence of these between 1985 and 1988, with the appearance of Selected Subaltern Studies (Guha and Spivak 1988, preface by Edward Said), along with Spivak’s paper ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ (1988) and Rosalind O’Hanlon’s ‘Recovering the Subject’ (1988). The process was later succinctly summarized in a ‘small’ history of the collective by Dipesh Chakrabarty, who was a member thereof, as follows: Both Spivak and O’Hanlon pointed to the absence of gender questions in Subaltern Studies. Both also made a more fundamental criticism of the theoretical orientation of the project, pointing out that, in effect, Subaltern Studies historiography operated with the idea of the subject – in Guha’s words, ‘to acknowledge the subaltern as the maker of his own destiny’ – that had not wrestled at all with contemporary critiques of the very idea of the subject itself. Spivak’s famous ‘Can the Subaltern Speak?’ [. . .] forcefully posed these and related questions by raising deconstructive and philosophical objections to any straightforward program of ‘letting the subaltern speak.’ (Chakrabarty 2002: 17) The quotation notes a conceptual intervention from the depths of Theory, with its political aspirations, which wrought a change in Subaltern Studies historiography and practice of history. The process was naturally two-way, and Spivak found enough coherence between what the historians were at and what was unfolding amidst Literary Theory in the USA – amidst deconstruction and feminist and postcolonial theory. Her negotiation of terms between the two directions is indicative, and unsurprisingly one of the terms she was interested in was ‘crisis’: They [Subaltern Studies historians] generally perceive their task as making a theory of consciousness or culture rather than specifically a theory of change. It is because of this, I think, that the force of crisis, although never far from their argument, is not systematically emphasized in their work, and sometimes disarmingly alluded to as ‘impingement’, ‘combination’, ‘getting caught up in a general way’, ‘circumstances for unification’, ‘reasons for change’, ‘ambiguity’, ‘unease’, ‘transit’, ‘bringing into focus’; even as it is also described as ‘switch’, ‘catching fire’ and, pervasively, as ‘turning upside down’ – all critical concept-metaphors that would indicate force. Indeed, a general sobriety of tone will not allow them to emphasize sufficiently that they are themselves bringing hegemonic historiography to crisis. (Spivak 1985: 331–2)

10  Gupta Here we have actually a translation of the historians’ terms into the term ‘crisis’ so that the project of the Subaltern Studies collective begins to resonate with the Theory-driven crisis in the humanities, and particularly in institutional literary studies. Among others, Said (1978 and 1983) had already, via Foucauldian historiography, initiated a worldly questioning of dominant academic, particularly literary critical, discourses in the ‘West’. The possibilities of these moves for reconsidering the history of ES in India were registered around this time by Rajeswari Sunder Rajan in a paper, ‘After “Orientalism”’ (1986). It was a small step from Spivak’s joining of the crisis in hegemonic historiography (the Subaltern Studies project) with the Theory-driven crisis of humanities, to the crisis of ES in India and the impulse to historicize as panacea. The most influential effort in this direction, at the cusp of the crisis debates in India, appeared in Gauri Viswanathan’s Masks of Conquest (1989) – written as a doctoral dissertation at Columbia University, and acknowledging the guidance of, among others, Said and Spivak. The moment and place at which, and support with which, Viswanathan’s book appeared had much to do with its subsequent influence. The broad conception of the project was not unprecedented, but its historiographical assumptions were: Viswanathan announced the distinctiveness of her approach from those of predecessors (mainly McCully 1940, Kopf 1969). A decade earlier than Vishwanathan’s book, Kalyan Chatterjee’s English Education in India (1976) had covered much of the ground she was to, and with a similar interest in English literary studies – it was listed in the bibliography but not discussed by Viswanathan. A brief comparison of Chatterjee’s and Viswanathan’s approaches serves to clarify the directions that historicist perspectives of ES took after the latter. Both shared significant common ground in their sense of ES and use of sources. For both the focus was on the introduction of English literary studies in Indian HE. Also, both presented ES as an instrumental formation, best understood through policies and institutional agendas of colonial India rather than through scholarship within the discipline. The ideological debates and conflicts that they outlined – between Anglicists and Orientalists, Evangelists and Utilitarians, moralists and functionalists, vernacularists and English-medium educationists – were therefore charted almost exclusively through government policy documents and, in a limited way, institutional records (like curricular content). Insofar as philologists and critics and teachers and litterateurs were evoked, that was not in terms of what they did by way of scholarly work but in terms of their stakes in policy debates and institutional agendas: they were placed as participants in the colonial discourse of policy makers and education administrators. Consequently, both Chatterjee and Viswanathan presented the content of the discipline in India as a more or less stable formation: simply available (or imported) as a coherent whole, to be used for whatever ideological advocacy and institutional pragmatics could be brought to bear on it (imperialist domination and acculturation, liberal moral improvement, Christian instruction, etc.). Both shared also an anti-imperialist perspective, and scepticism about ahistorical aesthetic and moral norms in literary study. Amidst such shared historiographical assumptions, however, significant differences between Chatterjee’s and Viswanathan’s accounts are evident. The differences have to do with the developments in the interim outlined above.

Historicizing English Studies in India 11 An indicative difference between Chatterjee’s and Viswanathan’s accounts appeared in their estimation of the Orientalists, who allegedly lost the colonial education policy battle to the Anglicists (Evangelists and Utilitarians) and the vernacularists as the institutionalization of English in India was accomplished. Chatterjee’s book appeared a couple of years before Said’s Orientalism and almost a decade after Kopf’s British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance (1969), which had given a relatively friendly account of Orientalism. For Chatterjee the Orientalists (such as William Jones, Jonathan Duncan, Henry Colebrooke, Henry Prinsep) offered a productive agenda which, though within the machinery of the colonial project, still resonates in post-independence postcolonial India: These Orientalist scholars were cosmopolitans and interested in the discovery of India by Europe. As for India’s modernisation, they believed that such modernisation could not be exported from Europe, but must be carried out in India, in India’s terms. They were considerably free of the imperializing mission of the Anglicist reformers like Trevelyan, Macaulay and Bentinck, and, in contrast to the Evangelists and Utilitarians, they stood for mutual understanding and indigenization of the British government and British institutions. When we consider their philosophy of education we realise that, in a significant way, they represented a revolutionary view for the regeneration of Indian society. (Chatterjee 1976: 121–2) Chatterjee’s was therefore a comparatively schismatic view of the colonial project, wherein contrary imperatives leading to contrary ends competed amidst a progressively established and increasingly coherent power structure. Viswanathan’s sense of the colonial project was more of a piece; therein the apparently contrary impulses of Orientalists and Anglicists worked towards a common imperialist end. The colonial power structure evolved as the apparently contrary impulses were debated, and was based on a unified and deeply ensconced imperial ideology (embedded in knowledge discourses) which glued together all apparent contrariness toward a common purpose. So, in Viswanathan’s account: Through its government-supported research and scholarly investigations Orientalism had produced a vast body of knowledge about the native subjects that the Anglicists subsequently drew upon to mount their attack on the culture as a whole. In short, Orientalist scholarship undertaken in the name of ‘gains to humanity’ gave the Anglicists precisely the material evidence they needed for drawing up a system of comparative evaluations in which one culture could be set off and measured against the other. For a variety of reasons [. . .], it would be more accurate to describe Orientalism and Anglicism not as polar opposites but as points along a continuum of attitudes toward the manner and form of native governance, the necessity and justification for which remained by and large an issue of remarkably little disagreement. (Viswanathan 1989: 30)

12  Gupta This account of the Orientalists’ role in India relative to the Anglicists’ was consistent with – was indeed part and parcel of – Said’s very much broader account of Orientalism and imperialism. Going purely by the evidence cited by Chatterjee and Viswanathan apropos Orientalists in, specifically, India (and indeed evidence cited by historians before and after) it is difficult to ascertain which view is more persuasive. The onus of persuasion in this instance derived more from ideological subscription than evidence. The weight of Said’s broader account of Orientalism worked in Viswanathan’s favour. Viswanathan’s of-a-piece conceptualization of colonialism, compared to Chatterjee’s schismatic one, did not pertain only to the debate between Orientalists and Anglicists; it was extended across her argument through certain interesting methodological decisions. Where Chatterjee had been interested in the accommodation of concepts from England in India through ES (e.g. in his reflections on ‘renaissance’, Ch. 4), Viswanathan decided that, ‘The relation between the educational histories of England and India is best understood as structured on the principle of complementarity’ (p. 8). This seemed reasonable given that India had a long-established pre-colonial tradition of education and scholarship, which necessarily inflected attempts to import educational policies and programmes. Further, where Chatterjee had taken systematic, albeit cursory, account of ‘native responses’ to the various moves in colonial education policy, Viswanathan decided against doing so. She felt that the colonizer’s rationale was enclosed and self-perpetuating in a way that comprehensively disregarded the colonized while acting upon them, and therefore her account of this rationale needn’t dwell upon ‘how Indians actually received, reacted to, imbibed, manipulated, reinterpreted, or resisted the ideological content of British literary education’ – ‘not only is an account of why Indians might want to believe the British ideology given their own intentions and how they manipulated it and selectively reinterpreted it for their own purposes outside the scope of this book; it is in fact irrelevant to it’ (pp. 11–12). The effect of this decision was to elide the ideological fissures that existed within the constituencies of the colonized (along the lines of caste, class, gender, religion, and so on) apropos ES, and to put an over-determined focus on the coloniser’s ideological programme in itself. Finally, while Chatterjee’s history of colonial education policy was designed to bear upon the current practice of ES in India, Viswanathan was more circumspect about such an agenda. She put it outside the scope of her book as a separate project, and in concluding also sounded ‘a cautionary note against reading the history of nineteenth-century English studies as continuous with contemporary educational practice in India’ (p. 168). These methodological and historiographical decisions enabled Viswanathan to come up with a considerably more focused and of-a-piece account of colonial rationales and discourses in relation to ES than Chatterjee. On the one hand, Viswanathan’s account gelled with broader critical understanding of colonial discourse following Said’s work and that of the Subaltern Studies historians. Viswanathan’s of-a-piece perspective on colonialism seemed to sharpen the posterior location of postcolonial critique. As such her institutional history fed amenably into the crisis debates of Indian ES. On the other hand, the characterization and

Historicizing English Studies in India 13 scope of colonial history was so clearly circumscribed by Viswanathan that it usefully left ample space for filling in gaps, for linking to subsequent phases of the discipline’s institutional practices and educational policy development, and for fleshing out the connections that were suggested but carefully put aside. The historicizing of Indian ES amidst the crisis debates appeared accordingly, with frequent reference to Viswanathan’s book. I have already mentioned the historicist interventions found in Joshi ed. Rethinking English (1991) – similar interventions are found in other publications of the time. These both drew lines from the colonial history to the present of Indian ES and filled gaps in Viswanathan’s account (with closer attention to the response of the colonized in India, especially in relation to gender, translation and the vernaculars). Particularly relevant here, discussions of English language learning by Agnihotri and Khanna, Problematizing English in India (1997), extended the structure provided by Viswanathan. The most persistent attempts at filling the gaps in Viswanathan’s book while subscribing to its ideological spirit were made with reference to policy documents. Various reconsiderations of Thomas Babington Macaulay’s much-discussed 1835 Minute on Education, which stated the Anglicist position and turn in education policy most explicitly, have appeared at regular intervals since. Some of these focused on its Utilitarian and Evangelist sources and influences (Phillipson 1992, Ghosh 1995) while others focused on the contribution of the Indian intelligentsia in its making and impact (Frykenberg 1988, Evans 2002). Prem Poddar (2002) followed Viswanathan’s methodology in analysing post-independence Indian education policy in relation to ES. Between the late 1990s and the closing of the decade towards 2010 a shift is observed in the project of historicizing ES in India. This was a shift away from the terms of the Theory-infused crisis debate (which had reached a kind of closure by the early 2000s) towards a more politically contingent retrospection on the study of English language and literature in India, with more of a critical interest in Indian social inequities other than those grounded in coloniser–colonized relations. This shift was clearly articulated in two books which appeared in 2009: Santosh Dash’s English Education and the Question of Indian Nationalism and Alok Mukherjee’s This Gift of English. While these books were critical of and politically resistant to the establishment position apropos English in India, they could also be thought of as tacitly taking possession of ES in India beyond postcolonial historicizing and crisis debates. These positioned the discipline amidst the interstices of Indian social dynamics – past and, more importantly, continuing – alongside and beyond the colonial and postcolonial.

On the ground Several developments between the late 1990s and 2009 apropos the position of English in India are relevant to Dash’s and Mukherjee’s books. These developments were distinctive from the concerns of the crisis debates in the late 1980s and 1990s in being pressed upon academia from ground-level, from the midst of a complex of social realities. These seemed to push upon ES in India before being fully registered

14  Gupta and conceptualized in academic terms – demanding attention. Indeed, the demand pressed upon the study of modern Indian languages more generally. As noted already, social inequalities exercised through English proficiency have continued to be embedded in the education system since independence. At the same time, especially after 2000, there has been growing evidence of a top-down and bottom-up demand for greater and more widespread English proficiency. On the one hand, English seems ever more necessary for the workforce of the future amidst globalized processes; on the other hand, traditionally disadvantaged and dispossessed communities feel that becoming proficient in English encourages higher earnings and superior social status. The push from both directions has created a sort of social pressure of English: both in the growing numbers of people seeking English language skills, and in the demand from government and employers for more persons proficient in English and more depth in proficiency. Several reports on the labour force in India identify proficiency in English as a significant skills deficit (see Aring 2012 [India report], p. 1). A number of surveys indicate that poorer families are increasingly preferring schools which reputedly offer sound English instruction for their children, even when they can ill afford to (on this see, for instance, Advani 2009, and Desai et al. 2008 on the growing popularity of private schools, esp. pp. 18-20). On a related note, the fact that prominent Dalit leaders and intellectuals have promoted English as their preferred language of aspiration and opportunity has been significant. The powerful Dalit political and cultural movement that gathered force through the 1990s has brought the particularity of Dalit life-experiences and perspectives, at odds with traditionally dominant cultural discourses, into the forefront of the Indian public sphere. That ideologues of the most oppressed constituencies in India prefer to think of English as the medium of aspiration and opportunity and, moreover, that there is a significant history of this (as Omvedt 2006 noted), has undoubtedly interfered with grievances about the hegemony of English and the beleaguered status of Indian vernaculars. Interest in Dalit attitudes to English has ranged from media-fuelled curiosity about political gestures – such as the construction of a temple to Goddess English and celebrations of Macaulay’s birthday – to considered exploration of the language politics in question (Anand 1999, Dash 2009, Mukherjee 2009, esp. Conclusion). Other developments play alongside the general thrust of this pressure. The success of the Business Process Outsourcing (‘outsourcing’ in short) industry in India is pertinent here. Relevantly, media attention to the outsourcing industry re-valued English-proficiency as being not merely an important element of cultural capital but also directly translatable into financial capital in India. Much of the academic discussion on English in this context has centred on questions of identity (e.g. Taylor and Bain 2005, Cowie 2007, Poster 2007); however, it is generally taken for granted that outsourcing has spurred the growing demand for English in India. Reconsideration of the position of English in India is not only driven by economic considerations. The incorporation of English words and phrases into Indian vernaculars is increasingly manifested in public and popular cultural exchanges (advertisements, commercial films, newspapers, popular songs, etc.), and suggests a greater degree of acceptance of linguistic hybridity

Historicizing English Studies in India 15 than heretofore. With reference to such hybridity in Hindi, commonly called ‘Hinglish’ now (for varied discussions, see Kothari and Snell eds. 2012), scholars have occasionally pronounced it an elite metropolitan phenomenon (Trivedi 2008, pp. 203–6), and sometimes declared it a ‘re-vernacularization’ of Hindi that works against nationalist subscriptions of linguistic purity (Saxena 2010). From a quite different direction, the very significant growth of Indian commercial fiction in English since the 1990s, targeting an Indian readership (which circulates indifferently, if at all, outside India), also has a bearing on reconsiderations of English. Arguably, such commercial fiction attempts to take possession of English as an Indian language (Gupta 2012): English appears to be used in these texts as if it is familiar in the Indian habitus, whereas Indian literary fiction in English has often been charged with a defamiliarized relationship with Indian contexts, and regarded as ‘inauthentic’ or ‘exoticizing’. In a related fashion, also relevant here is simply the fact that since the 1990s there has been a constant increase in the numbers of literary translations from Indian languages into English, targeting Indian readers, being published (examined at length in Kothari 2003). Against this backdrop, Dash’s English Education and the Question of Indian Nationalism (2009) and Mukherjee’s This Gift of English (2009) built upon the histories of ES by and after Viswanathan (1989) while taking a distinctive turn. Both Dash and Mukherjee continued to look upon Indian ES with the emphasis on the literary. Both maintained a preponderant interest in the governmental and institutional policy dimensions of the disciplinary history. For both the Anglicist-Orientalist debates led into and structured their historical narratives, albeit in ways that differed significantly from Viswanathan’s, as clarified below. In both, the Gramscian inspiration behind the Subaltern Studies collective’s work was foregrounded to re-examine histories of colonial and postcolonial education policy and English education in India. The Subaltern Studies critique of imperialist and nationalist historiography was considered at some length in Dash (2009, Ch. 2). Mukherjee (2009, Ch. 1) grounded his disciplinary history in a conceptual framework drawn from Gramsci and Pierre Bourdieu. However, the of-a-piece conceptualization of the colonial project that Viswanathan presented, consonant with Said’s account of Orientalism and the politics of Theory (especially postcolonial theory), was regarded by both as a step to climb beyond. Naturally, no return to the kind of schismatic view of colonialism and estimation of the Orientalists found in Chatterjee (1976) was contemplated by either. But postcolonial theory and its investment in the history of ES in India was regarded sympathetically as giving only a partial and at times misleading account, which should be grasped only to move towards more complex reckonings. This meant that the methodological delimitations that Viswanathan imposed on herself were systematically reversed or complicated in these books. Where Viswanathan cautioned against drawing lines of continuity between the colonial history of the discipline and its current condition (which participants in the crisis debates had already begun to disregard), here the lines of continuity were a constant undercurrent – they provided a kind of impetus to historicizing which amounts to a historiographical decision, a ploy to bounce the past against

16  Gupta the present so as to sharpen understanding of both. Where Viswanathan’s notion of the complementary relationship between the discipline’s history in Britain and in India meant that the latter was focalized, in Dash’s and Mukherjee’s books particular attention to that complementarity sharpens focus on the Indian situation. Most importantly, where Viswanathan put aside the business of ‘how Indians actually received, reacted to, imbibed, manipulated, reinterpreted, or resisted the ideological content of British literary education’, this was precisely where these histories were focused. The latter didn’t take this up, as the crisis debates did, in a spirit of filling the gaps of Viswanathan’s postcolonial history. The social dynamics amongst Indians and the role that Indian social mores played amidst the colonial history of institutionalizing ES was the fulcrum of Dash’s and Mukherjee’s analysis. The centrality of that social dynamics in these accounts was straightforwardly pushed by contemporary concerns (especially of caste politics and the Dalit movement), and motivated a re-examination and re-investigation of colonial education policy and the history of English in India – again, as for the crisis debates, as a kind of medicine for contemporary inequities. These reconsiderations of the history of English in India were shot through, as before, with the Orientalist-Anglicist debate. Viswanathan’s account of the joinedup imperialist interests on both sides was accepted, but the notion that the Orientalist agenda simply fed into and merged with (or was overtaken by) the imperialist thrust of the Anglicist agenda was not. It was maintained instead that though the policy of Anglicization in HE was instituted, the Orientalists’ agenda was also assimilated to play alongside – sometimes in concert with and at other times against the grain of that – at the behest of both the British establishment and the Indian elites. Some sections of the Indian elites (by class and caste) had supported the Anglicists’ programme in accordance with their own interests; as importantly, by this argument, the Orientalists’ agenda was opportunistically picked up and accommodated in educational policy and practice thereafter in keeping with Indian elite interests. Thus the inculcation of English into Indian academia worked through a gradual concordance of both imperialist and elite Indian interests, through Anglicization with Orientalist underpinnings in education policy, in ways which have maintained those elite Indian interests since independence. Dash discerned these moves by focusing on the vernacularization debates that followed later in the nineteenth century (from the 1860s and 1870s onwards), apparently against the dominance of English. Elite Indian interests were embedded in the education system by adopting Sanskritized versions of the vernaculars as standard (especially as medium of instruction in schooling), backed by the strong interest that Orientalists (comparative philologists) had in Sanskrit as the original literary language of India (convinced that it retains some of the originary features of the Indo-European family of languages). At the same time, compulsory English in schools and, especially, English as medium of instruction in HE meant that mainly the elites could access education and align themselves with establishment interests – unlike the institutionalization of ES in the UK, which was initially designed to give educational access to the working classes and women. This dominant structure of interests was strengthened by fronting English as well as vernacular pedagogy

Historicizing English Studies in India 17 through literary curricula following Matthew Arnold’s principles of universal aesthetic values, which elided the ideological interests and political fissures that were actually embedded. In India all this meant that an idea of nationhood and belonging came to be articulated in predominantly elite terms, and the numerous poorer social strata were systematically disadvantaged during the colonial and the postcolonial periods. In outlining these moves Dash focused particularly on the disenfranchisement of Dalits in these developments: to be able to illuminate the shrouded elite agendas, he drew upon B. R. Ambedkar’s (Dash 2009: 86–100) and Kancha Ilaiah’s (Dash 2009: 122–37) dislocating of establishment accounts of nation in relation to the study of language and literature. Mukherjee’s more detailed account of the institutionalization of English Studies in India, presented broadly the same argument as Dash’s. In summarizing the general argument as stated above in, Mukherjee noted the nineteenth century appearance of a new Orientalism, distinctively Hindu and upper caste, to promote the elite Indian agenda: At the same time as the colonial rulers were engaged in promoting their hegemonic agenda, and as a result of contact with them, elements from within the same section of the populace that was targeted for minimal hegemony, developed their own alternative hegemonic interest. They were motivated by an economic as well as a socio-political agenda. On the economic side, they hoped through English education to benefit materially from the colonial economy. On the socio-political side, their interest was far more ambitious. It was an agenda of reviving the lost glory of pre-Islamic India, which they articulated in terms of social reform, moral improvement, modernization and progress. [. . .] They accepted and turned to their own use ‘new’ Orientalism’s notion of a common racial and linguistic origin binding Hindus and Europeans. English education became for them the medium to regain the lost past – and eventually, self-rule. (Mukherjee 2009: 72) The appeal of the ‘new’ Orientalism in the later nineteenth century, which Mukherjee examined in relation to Indian ES and the development of vernacular literatures (pp. 85–105), was mainly in offering a myth of Aryan origins for Europeans and Indians, which ‘gave the “high” caste Hindu elite [. . .] an opportunity to construct a communalist version of a Hindu past predating India’s contact with Turko-Afghans’ (p. 99). The background of philological scholarship that fed the ‘new’ Orientalism that inflected ES in India was detailed extensively in Thomas Trautmann’s Aryans and British India (1997). Dash’s and Mukherjee’s 2009 accounts of the history of ES in India were obviously offered not merely as scholarly interventions in postcolonial history and historiography or in academic crisis debates; these were interventions in broader contemporary political debates in India via ES, and accordingly a rearticulation of the place of ES in Indian society and politics. The result was that English couldn’t be regarded simply as a colonial importation and imposition (of a piece with the colonial project) or as the concern of elite academic ivory towers. Talking of the history of English and the currency of ES also draws in the past and

18  Gupta present of pressing political divides and social conflicts. It implicates obviously (and sympathetically) the consolidation of the Dalit political movement through and since the 1990s, and as importantly (and in an oppositional manner) the rise of Hindu communal politics on the national political stage over the same period. That the history of ES and the most pressing concerns of Indian society and politics could be thus closely entwined could be regarded as a taking possession of English – not in a spirit of embracing and celebrating English language and literary studies, but in a critical recognition of its embedment within the conflicts of Indian society and polity. The historicizing of ES in India is far from complete and is a project that should not be regarded as ever quite done with, given that historicizing is responsive to a contingent social and political environment. The directions of enquiry opened up by Dash’s and Mukherjee’s books could be pursued further; in particular, the philological rationale that underpins the ‘new’ Orientalism offers considerable scope for further research. This rationale was at the bottom of not just ES but all humanistic disciplines as institutional practices became professionalized in European HE and elsewhere. Exploring the particular negotiations in this regard for Indian ES could inform and be informed by institutional accommodations of the humanities in various European and other HE contexts in the nineteenth century. In a different direction, given the ongoing turn towards emphasizing language literacy over literary study for ES in Indian HE, somewhat different histories of ES – with less investment in the literary – could be anticipated. Extended histories of ES in India which focus on the business of English language teaching and learning centred are yet to be written, along the lines of A. P. R. Howatt’s A History of English Language Teaching (1984) or the histories of ‘College English’ and composition/rhetoric in North American universities which were cited at the beginning. There were gestures in that direction in several parts to Agnihotri and Khanna’s books (1995 and 1997), but those worked within the historicist assumptions that were foregrounded in the crisis debates. Modhumita Roy’s essay ‘ “Englishing India”: Reinstituting Class and Social Privilege’ (1994) made a very useful foray in the direction, exploring the social and material interests that motivated English language learning in nineteenth-century Bengal. A sustained and India-wide study in this direction, with an eye on institutional developments for ES, would be of considerable scholarly interest at the present juncture.

References Advani, Shalini (2009). Schooling the National Imagination: Education, English and the Indian Modern. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Agnihotri, R. K. and A. L. Khanna eds. (1995). English Language Teaching in India: Issues and Innovations. Delhi: Sage. Agnihotri, R. K. and A. L. Khanna (1997). Problematizing English in India. Delhi: Sage. Anand, S. (1999). ‘Sanskrit, English and the Dalits’. Economic and Political Weekly, 24 July. 2053–6. Applebee, Arthur (1974). Reform in the Teaching of English: A History. Urbana: NCTE.

Historicizing English Studies in India 19 Aring, Monika (2012). Report on Skills Gaps (Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2012, Youth and skills: Putting education to work). UNESCO. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0021/002178/217874e.pdf Baldick, Chris (1983). The Social Mission of English Criticism, 1848–1932. Oxford: Clarendon. Berlin, James (1984). Writing Instruction in Nineteenth-Century American Colleges. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Chakrabarty, Dipesh (2002). ‘A Small History of Subaltern Studies’. Habitations of Modernity: Essays in the Wake of Subaltern Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 3–19. Chatterjee, Kalyan K. (1976). English Education in India: Issues and Opinions. Delhi: Macmillan. Court, Franklin E. (1992). Institutionalizing English Literature: The Culture and Politics of Literary Study, 1750–1900. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Cowie, Clare (2007). ‘The Accents of Outsourcing: The Meaning of “Neutral” in the Indian Call Centre Industry’. World Englishes 26:3, August. 316–30. Crawford, Robert (1992). Devolving English Literature. Oxford: Clarendon. Dash, Santosh (2009). English Education and the Question of Indian Nationalism: A Perspective on the Vernacular. Delhi: Aakar. Desai, Anjana (1993). ‘TELI and Non-Metropolitan Areas’. In Marathe, Ramanan, and Bellarmine eds. 37–48. Desai, Sonalde, Amaresh Dubey, Reeve Vanneman and Rukmini Banerji (2008). Private Schooling in India: A New Educational Landscape. India Human Development Survey, Working Paper 11. http://www.ihds.umd.edu/IHDS_ papers/PrivateSchooling.pdf Dixon, John (1991). A Schooling in ‘English’: Critical Episodes in the Struggle to Shape Literary and Cultural Studies. Buckingham: Open University Press. Doyle, Brian (1989). English and Englishness. London: Routledge. Eagleton, Terry (1983). Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Engler, Balz and Renate Haas eds. (2000). European English Studies: Contributions Towards the History of a Discipline, Volume 1. Leicester: The English Association for ESSE. Evans, Stephen (2002). ‘Macaulay’s Minute Revisited: Colonial Language Policy in Nineteenth-Century India’. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 23:4. 260–81. Faust, David and Richa Nagar (2001). ‘Politics of Development in Postcolonial India: English-Medium Education and Social Fracturing’. Economic and Political Weekly 36:30, 28 July. 2878–83. Frykenberg, Robert E. (1988). ‘The Myth of English as a ‘Colonialist’ Imposition upon India: A Reappraisal with Special Reference to South India’. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 2 (1988). 305–15. Ghosh, Suresh Chandra (1995). ‘Bentinck, Macaulay and the Introduction of English Education in India’. History of Education 24:1, March. 17–24. Graff, Gerald (1987). Professing Literature: An Institutional History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gramsci, Antonio (1971). Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Trans. Quintin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith. New York: International. Guha, Ranajit (1982). ‘On Some Aspects of the Historiography of Colonial India’. In Guha ed. 1–8.

20  Gupta Guha, Ranajit ed. (1982). Subaltern Studies 1: Writings on South Asian History and Society. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Guha, Ranajit ed. (1985). Subaltern Studies 4: Writings on South Asian History and Society. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Guha, Ranajit and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak eds. (1988). Selected Subaltern Studies. New York: Oxford University Press. Gupta, Suman (2012). ‘Indian Commercial Fiction in English, the Publishing Industry, and Youth Culture’. Economic and Political Weekly 46:5, February. 46–53. Haas, Renate and Balz Engler eds. (2008). European English Studies: Contributions Towards the History of a Discipline, Volume 2. Leicester: The English Association for ESSE. Horner, Winifred Bryan ed.(1985). The Present State of Scholarship in Historical and Comparative Rhetoric. Columbia: University of Mississippi Press. Howatt, A. P. R (1984). A History of English Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jaaware, Aniket (1997). ‘The Silence of the Subaltern Student’. In Tharu ed. 107–24. Johnson, David (1996). Shakespeare and South Africa. Oxford: Clarendon. Joshi, Svati ed. (1991). Rethinking English: Essays in Literature, Language, History. New Delhi: Trianka. Kitzhaber, Albert (1990). Rhetoric in American Colleges: 1850–1900. Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press. Kopf, David (1969). British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance: The Dynamics of Indian Modernization 1773–1835. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kothari, Rita (2003). Translating India. Delhi: Foundation. Kothari, Rita and Rupert Snell eds. (2012). Chutnefying English: The Phenomenon of Hinglish. Delhi: Penguin India. McCully, Bruce Tiebout (1940). English Education and the Origins of Indian Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Mailloux, Steven (1989). Rhetorical Power. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Marathe, Sudhakar, Mohan Ramanan, and Robert Bellarmine eds. (1993). Provocations: The Teaching of English Literature in India. Chennai: Orient Blackswan. Miller, Thomas P. (1997). The Formation of College English: Rhetoric and Belles Lettres in the British Cultural Provinces. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Miller, Thomas P. (2010). The Evolution of College English: Literacy Studies from the Puritans to the Postmoderns. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Mukherjee, Alok K. (2009). This Gift of English: English Education and the Formation of Alternative Hegemonies in India. Delhi: Orient Blackswan. Mukherjee, Arun, Alok Mukherjee and Barbara Godard (2008). ‘Translating Minoritized Cultures: Issues of Caste, Class, Gender’. Postcolonial Text 2:3. 1–23. Nagarajan, S. (1981). ‘The Decline of English in India: Some Historical Notes’. College English 43:7, November. 663–70. O’Hanlon, Rosalind (1988). ‘Recovering the Subject: Subaltern Studies and Histories of Resistance in Colonial South Asia’. Modern Asian Studies 22:1. 189–224. Ohmann, Richard (1976). English in America: A Radical View of the Profession. New York: Oxford University Press. Omvedt, Gail (2006). ‘Why Dalits Want English’. The Times of India, 9 November. http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2006-11-09/edit-page/27826542_ 1_chandrabhan-prasad-dalit-intellectuals-english

Historicizing English Studies in India 21 Palmer, D. J. (1965). The Rise of English Studies: An Account of the Study of English Language and Literature from its Origins to the Making of the Oxford English School. London: Oxford University Press. Phillipson, Robert (1992). Linguistic Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Poddar, Prem (2002). Violent Civilities: English, India, Culture. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Poster, Winifred R. (2007). ‘Who’s On the Line?’ Industrial Relations, 46:2, April. 271–304. Rai, Alok (1991). ‘Out Here: An English Teacher in the Provinces’. In Joshi ed. 298–320. Rajan, Rajeswari Sunder (1986). ‘After “Orientalism”: Colonialism and English Literary Studies in India’. Social Scientist 14:7, July. 23–35. Rajan, Rajeswari Sunder (1992). ‘Fixing English: Nation, Language, Subject’. In Rajan ed. 7–28. Rajan, Rajeswari Sunder ed. (1992). The Lie of the Land: English Literary Studies in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Ramanathan, Vai (1999). ‘English is here to stay’. TESOL Quarterly 33:2, Summer. 211–31. Roy, Modhumita (1994). ‘“Englishing India”: Reinstituting Class and Social Privilege’. Social Text 39, Summer. 83–109. Said, Edward (1978). Orientalism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Said, Edward (1983). The World, the Text, and the Critic. London: Vintage. Saxena, Akshaya (2010). ‘Hindi, English and “Hinglish”: Colonial Cousins and Re-Vernacularization of “National Language”’. In G. J. V. Prasad ed. Translation and Culture: Indian Perspectives. Delhi: Pencraft. 110–23. Scholes, Robert (1998). The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1985). ‘Subaltern Studies: Deconstructing Historiography’. In Guha ed. 330–63. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988). ‘Can the Subaltern Speak’. In Cary Nelson and Lawrence Grossberg eds. Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. 271–316. Taylor, Phil and Peter Bain (2005). ‘“India calling to the far away towns”: The Call Centre Labour Processes and Globalization”. Work, Employment and Society 19:2. 261–82. Tharu, Susie (1997). ‘Government, Binding and Unbinding: Alienation and the Teaching of Literature’. In Tharu ed. 1–32. Tharu, Susie ed. (1997). Subject to Change: Teaching Literature in the Nineties. London: Sangam. Trautmann, Thomas K (1997). Aryans and British India. Berkeley: University of California Press. Trivedi, Harish (2008). ‘From Bollywood to Hollywood: The Globalization of Hindi Cinema’. In Revathi Krishnaswamy and John C. Hawley eds. The Postcolonial and the Global. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Viswanathan, Gauri (1989). Masks of Conquest: Literary Study and British Rule in India. London: Faber and Faber. Winterowd, W. Ross (1998). The English Department: A Personal and Institutional History. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

2 Higher Education policy and English Studies in India Supriya Chaudhuri

In July 2014, protests by thousands of candidates scheduled to appear in the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC) Examination, hoping to qualify for the Indian national civil services, brought ‘the question of English’ once more to the attention of the nation. The agitation, which threatened to disrupt the business of Parliament and led to repeated adjournments of the Lok Sabha, with angry members rushing into the well of the House to voice their discontent, had been gathering steam for the past three years, and came to a head over the perceived neglect by the new government of an issue it had promised to address. Protestors inside and outside the House demanded the scrapping of Paper II in the C-SAT, or civil services aptitude test, a compulsory preliminary examination for which questions are set in both English and Hindi, but which includes (in Paper II) a test of English comprehension and basic writing skills. This paper was introduced in 2011 under the former, Congress-led, coalition government, and was challenged in court the following year, leading to the setting up of a committee to look into the matter (which had not yet submitted its report before the government changed). Given the strength of the agitation and the fact that the preliminary examination was scheduled for 24 August, the current regime chose to proceed with caution, taking the easy route of announcing that marks obtained in the English section of the paper would not count towards the candidate’s rank in the merit list. The controversy was important in renewing focus on the contentious issue of English in Indian higher education (HE), given that UPSC candidates are graduates. It also gave new expression to the discontents surrounding the idea of a ‘national’ language in a multilingual nation, extending even to the primacy of Hindi along with English. The languages of the UPSC preliminary examination are English and Hindi, while the main examination can be attempted in any of the languages listed in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Some of the protestors, especially those from the south and east of India, demanded such a provision in the preliminary examination as well, while those in favour of the present format argued that elementary English and analytical skills, as tested by the C-SAT examination, were desirable in all Indian civil servants. However, the bulk of the protestors were from the Hindi-speaking north, and they were adamant in their opposition to any testing of English skills. It was pointed out that

Higher Education policy and ES in India 23 the examination did not require proficiency in English beyond that mandated in the current school curriculum, where English is compulsory. This was not disputed by the agitators, who were more concerned about the perceived ‘advantage’ being given to those with greater competence in English over Hindi and the many regional languages spoken in India’s twenty-nine states and seven union territories. But beyond the heat and acrimony of the debate and its political ramifications lay a singular policy deficit: the absence, over the past decade and more, of any national policy recommendations regarding the place of English in HE.

The language of higher education In fact, the last significant pronouncements regarding language policy at university level are to be found in the Programme of Action (1992) which reiterated the Congress government’s commitment to the National Policy on Education (NPE) of 1986, formulated under a previous Congress Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, and reworking the premises of an earlier National Policy on Education document published in 1968 by the Congress government of Indira Gandhi. The NPE of 1986 actually says very little about languages in education beyond espousing the ‘three-language formula’ of the prior document (NPE 1986: p. 29; NPE 1968: pp. 39–40 – both in MHRD 1998), a recommendation that had major implications for school education during successive decades. Attempting to counter linguistic chauvinism, especially in the form of virulent anti-Hindi agitations in the southern states of India (triggered by the expiry, in 1965, of the fifteen-year limit set by the Constitution to the use of English along with Hindi, before Hindi formally became the official language) the 1968 document advised that: the State Governments should adopt, and vigorously implement, the threelanguage formula which includes the study of a modern Indian language, preferably one of the southern languages, apart from Hindi and English in the Hindi-speaking States, and of Hindi along with the regional language and English in the Non-Hindi-speaking States. Suitable courses in Hindi and/or English should also be available in universities and colleges with a view to improving the proficiency of students in these languages up to the prescribed university standards. (NPE 1968, in MHRD 1998, p. 40) In three further paragraphs, the same document also urged, first, due attention to Hindi as the ‘link language’ provided for in Article 351 of the Constitution, recommending its adoption as a medium of instruction in HE; second, the promotion of Sanskrit as a source of ‘cultural unity’; and third, the study of ‘English and other international languages’ to aid scientific and technological development (p. 40). The Programme of Action laid out in 1992 gives far greater space and importance to languages in HE, though it professes merely to be summarizing and expanding the recommendations of the NPE of 1986. It claims misleadingly that

24  Chaudhuri the earlier policy paper had advised ‘the adoption of regional languages as the media of instruction at the University stage’ (MHRD 1992, p. 149), in addition to the promotion of Hindi, the study of English, the teaching of Sanskrit, and a vigorous translation programme. In fact it was the University Education Commission Report of 1948–9 that had recommended the use of regional languages at all stages of education, with Hindi, as the ‘federal’ language, being retained as an optional medium. The Commission, under the chairmanship of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, later President of India, expressly condemned continued reliance upon English, which would lead to a kind of ‘split consciousness’ in the nation: We have paid a heavy price for learning through English in the past. Instead of laying stress upon thinking and reasoning we emphasized memorizing, in place of acquiring knowledge of things and realities we acquired a sort of mastery over words. It affected originality of thought and development of literature in the mother tongue. We have impoverished ourselves without being able to enrich the language which we so assiduously studied. It is a rare phenomenon to find the speaker of one tongue contributing to great literature in a different language. The paucity of great literature which is the inevitable consequence of devotion by the educated to a language other than their own is a double loss – intellectual and social, for great literature is a powerful factor in fostering culture, refinement and true fellowship. Whatever the advantages of English and the immediate risks in a change over to the new, the balance of advantage on a long view of the matter lies in the change. (Report of the University Education Commission p. 277) It is worth remembering that the cause of education in the mother tongue had been officially espoused long before Independence, for example by Lord Curzon, Viceroy of India between 1898 and 1905, who famously rejected ‘the cold breath of Macaulay’s rhetoric’ (Curzon 1902, p. 328); by the Resolution on the Educational Policy of the Government of India (21 February 1913); and by the Calcutta University Commission Report of 1917–1919, prepared under the chairmanship of Sir Michael Sadler. As a result, the use of English as the medium of instruction came to be largely restricted to HE institutions, that is, colleges and universities, from the 1920s onwards, and even there it was seen as provisional or temporary (Krishnamurti 2007, pp. 17–18). This was certainly the vision of the University Education Commission in 1948. The 1992 Programme of Action was framed against a national and global context very different from that envisaged in 1948. Just after Independence, the founders of the new nation (the Commission had included, in addition to Radhakrishnan, the scientist Meghnad Saha, the educationist A. L. Mudaliar, and a future President of India, Zakir Husain) ‘devoted much anxious thought to the problem of the medium of instruction in the universities and institutes of higher studies’ (Report of the University Education Commission p. 266) and cautiously recommended a progression from the mother tongue in basic education, to the

Higher Education policy and ES in India 25 regional language (if different from the mother tongue), supplemented by the Federal language (Hindi) in secondary and higher education, with English being gradually phased out. Yet in 1992, the use of regional languages in HE was obviously not universal, with ‘university teachers having received instruction in English find[ing] it difficult to teach through the Indian languages’ and ‘Indian languagemedium courses . . . generally not popular with the students because of the lack of professional comparability and poor employment potential’ (MHRD 1992, p. 150). Citing the Commonwealth Universities Yearbook, 1987, to the effect that ‘English is more popular in India today than it was in 1947’, Krishnamurti provides a table to show that the bulk of universities, especially Central Universities and the prestigious Indian Institutes of Technology, continued to teach courses in English, with some provision for regional languages at the undergraduate level in State Universities (Krishnamurti 2007, pp. 20–1). The 1992 Programme of Action (MHRD 1992) reiterates the government’s commitment to regional languages as the medium of instruction at the university stage, recommending the production of more and better textbooks, teacher orientation, and translation. At the same time, the authors note the unsatisfactory implementation of the three-language formula in schools, with no evidence of southern Indian languages being taught in Hindi-speaking states, and the substitution of the third ‘modern Indian language’ by a classical language such as Sanskrit (MHRD 1992, p. 151). In fact, although the Programme does not mention this, the 1980s and 1990s saw a proliferation of ‘English-medium’ schools for fee-paying middle-class children. Although the overwhelming majority of state-funded schools were still offering instruction through the regional language as well as instruction in English, efforts towards national linguistic integration by means of the ‘three-language formula’ had largely failed. Moreover, the formula did not address the needs of the ‘minority languages’ (Sridhar 334–40). The Programme of Action renewed the promise of support for Hindi teachers in non-Hindispeaking states as well as measures to improve linguistic competencies generally, including competence in English. Specific mention is made of programmes initiated by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the Regional Institute of English, Bangalore, the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages (CIEFL), Hyderabad, and the H. M. Patel Institute of English, Vallabh Vidyanagar, as well as of English Language Teaching (ELT) centres established at several universities by the University Grants Commission (UGC). The CIEFL was to monitor the progress made on the national Englishteaching front, presumably by the ELT centres and summer schools (MHRD 1992, p. 153). The Programme of Action noted with regret the lack of uniformity on language policy and the ‘unpleasant developments’ in the debate on the relative place of individual languages, making it imperative to constitute a Standing Committee under the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) to ‘(a) undertake a critical review of the language policies being adopted at various levels, (b) suggest a policy which would bring some uniformity about the place of languages in education; and (c) identify directions on which language development should be undertaken’ (MHRD 1992, p. 157).

26  Chaudhuri

English Studies in national HE policy It is not clear whether a Standing Committee was appointed under CABE, though the University Grants Commission did appoint one. The debate on language policy has continued to this day and has witnessed marked shifts in official position on the part of the states as well as the Centre. Expectedly, that debate has more to do with the language of instruction at school and to a lesser extent in HE, and with desirable levels of linguistic competence, particularly in English. On this last issue, important recommendations were made by the NCERT’s National Curriculum Framework (2005), as well as its NCERT National Focus Group on the Teaching of English, which presented its findings in the form of a Position Paper in 2006, and by the National Knowledge Commission in its Report to the Nation 2006–2009. But both bodies focused almost exclusively on school education, recognizing only in passing that schoolteachers would need to be qualified graduates. There is very little in official policy pronouncements regarding English Studies (ES) at college and university, barring one significant period at the close of the last century, to which I shall now turn. In keeping with its practice (at the time) of constituting ‘subject panels’ to advise on the disciplines of HE, the University Grants Commission appointed a Panel for English and Western Languages in 1991 ‘to recommend measures for enhancing the quality of teaching and research; to prepare periodically status reports; and to indicate areas of thrust and importance’ (UGC 1993, p. 5). The present author was a member of that Panel for two terms (1991–3, 1994–6) and prepared the status report submitted to the UGC in December 1993, at the conclusion of the Panel’s first two-year term. Subsequently, the Panel was reconstituted for a further term (1997–2000) and proposed a full revision of university curricula in English and other Western languages. It should be noted that UGC Model Curricula for several subjects including English were already in existence, but these were seen to be outdated, and a new Curriculum Development Committee (CDC) for English and other Western languages was constituted in September 2000, submitting its recommendations the following February. The UGC Model Curriculum for English and Other Western Languages, published in December 2001, is the last policy document specifically addressed to ES at university level. Together with the Report of the UGC Panel for English and Western Languages, 1993, it represents the outcome of a decade’s work, and discussion of, the nature and scope of ES in Indian HE. Significantly, neither of these documents deals with the question of English as a language of instruction, which had been the focus of earlier policy pronouncements. Instead, both focus upon literature and language teaching at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, reviewing the current situation and suggesting ways to modernize and improve literature departments and set global standards in research. In some ways the 1990s, with the work of the UGC Panels and the CDC recommendations, constitute an anomaly in terms of national policy initiatives, since both before and after, English is viewed in a much more instrumental fashion by policy-makers. On the UGC website today, that model curriculum for English, dating from

Higher Education policy and ES in India 27 the 2001 exercise, is discreetly concealed under the label ‘Western Languages,’ though there is a separate entry for Russian. The Report of the UGC Panel for English and Western Languages, 1993, is divided into four sections. The first section contains the actual report and recommendations. The second consists of five proposals: for the setting up of an Indian Council of Literary Research, like the existing Philosophical and Historical Research Councils, for the creation of a Resource Centre for World Literatures in English and an Information Centre for English Studies, for the compilation of a dictionary of standard Indian English, and for a status paper on the implementation of the CDC model curriculum of 1989. The third section contains status papers on evaluation standards at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, on the functioning of ELT centres, on library resources for ES, and on the teaching of other Western languages. The fourth section summarizes the Panel’s conclusions and provides a text of their earlier Interim Report. Given that the Reports of later Panels have disappeared into the dusty filerooms of the University Grants Commission in New Delhi, the existence of this published document, as well as that of the later UGC Model Curriculum, has been invaluable in reconstructing a forgotten history. Composed some twenty years ago, the Panel’s report has some bearing upon ES in India even today: It is generally recognized that the discipline of English studies emerged as an instrument of training colonial administrators in the culture of their own country. However, it is perhaps insufficiently appreciated that the discipline has undergone its greatest developments, expansions and transformations only in the era of decolonization and the postcolonial period. There are today larger numbers engaged in teaching and higher studies in English in India than in Great Britain. Despite problems of dismantling the colonial legacy, it may be said that scholarship and critical engagement in this field have generated, for educated Indians, creative possibilities within the native Indian literary tradition, as well as critical perspectives upon the West. In today’s climate of cultural exchange, it is all the more important that the discipline of English studies in India be made as sophisticated and responsive an instrument of cultural criticism and understanding as possible. (UGC 1993, p. 11) The members of the Panel were sensible of the opportunity afforded by the association of English with ‘other Western languages’ in their remit, noting that while the dominance of English had produced what we might call today a ‘skewed cosmopolitanism,’ it was important to remember the interrelatedness of European cultures and literatures. They welcomed the expansion of ES into new interdisciplinary areas, and expressed some confidence in the quality of the best work coming out of university English departments (UGC 1993, pp. 12–13). At the same time, they noted the heavy burden of classroom teaching on college and university lecturers, the financial constraints on research, the difficulty of access

28  Chaudhuri not just to primary but also to secondary material, and the inadequate library resources. It was in this context that the recommendations of the Panel (UGC 1993, pp. 20–3), some of them directly supported by the detailed proposals contained in the second section, or arising out of the specially commissioned status reports in the third, acquired substance and weight. The proposal for the creation of an Indian Council for Literary Research, on the lines of those for Philosophical and Historical Research, was approved in principle by the UGC’s Standing Committee and forwarded to the Ministry of Human Resource Development, since national councils do not fall within the UGC’s purview. In fact, the proposal was later also taken up with the Ministry of Culture, unfortunately to no effect, since neither Ministry appeared willing to commit time and resources to yet another research council which might end by becoming a hub of partisan politics (as has sadly been the case with the Indian Council of Historical Research, founded in 1972). But it is worth noting that the proposal envisaged shared ground for researchers in all fields of literature, and importantly, in all languages: that is, although it originated from the Panel for English and Western Languages, it attempted to place the literatures of these languages with those of other Indian languages in a common domain, facilitating the possibility of interlingual research. In some ways, this proposal anticipated the still more radical suggestion of the Curriculum Development Committee, some eight years later, to create programmes of ‘Literary Studies’ using more than one language, instead of literatures in English or of even of literatures translated into English (UGC 2001, p. 16). Both the Panel and CDC appeared to be giving due weight to India’s multilingual culture, the latter in particular imagining programmes that could ‘break quite free of traditional ‘Eng. Lit.’ and move into totally new areas with appropriate new titles eschewing the word ‘English’’ (UGC 2001, p. 17). It is worth linking these ideas to the currently fashionable ‘world literature’ debate, as well as to arguments within the discipline of comparative literature, since they clearly stem from a similar reaction to the dominance of ‘metropolitan’ literary cultures and a desire to recognize the multilingual climate in which our literary experiences are formed (Moretti 2000; Damrosch 2003, 2013; Spivak 2003; Casanova 2004; Apter 2005, 2013). The Panel’s other recommendations, for the creation of a Resource Centre for World Literatures in English, an Information Centre for English Studies, and a dictionary of Indian English, might seem to be more closely tied to its specific mandate. Apart from the last – satisfied in part at least by the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English (5th edition, 1996) with a special supplement on Indian English – these proposals remained unfulfilled. Nevertheless, the urgency with which they were put forward and the sense of purpose driving the Panel’s mission of strengthening and uniting ES in India are worthy of note. It is quite clear that the Panel was aware of the vastly uneven, disorganized, and even demoralized state of the English teaching community in colleges and universities distributed all over India. At the same time, it felt that the community’s extent and influence was a source of potential strength, and that it could set global standards in research and teaching if it could access better scholarly resources, exchange information, and be energized by better research goals. The specially

Higher Education policy and ES in India 29 commissioned status papers, therefore – on evaluation (prepared by this author), on the functioning of ELT centres (by S. V. Shastri), and on library resources (by Sukanta Chaudhuri) – as well as the proposal for a status paper on the adoption of the 1989 CDC model curriculum, and the recommendation that S. Nagarajan and Kitty Scoular Datta’s projected Union Catalogue of library holdings in ES be completed, collectively add up to a statement of intent. The desire on the Panel’s part to make a positive difference to the field should be set beside its trenchant critique of: the absence of uniformity in evaluation and, consequently, the varying worth of degrees from different universities; the compulsion to pass a certain proportion of candidates with insufficient command over the language; the confused motives of those who seek higher degrees in English literature with the actual aim of achieving linguistic fluency and social status; the mercenary pursuit of higher degrees (M.Phil/Ph.D) by persons unfit to enter the academic profession; and a new set of problems caused by the rigid application of UGC criteria like the NET [National Eligibility Test for college and university teachers]. (UGC 1993, p. 15) Specific suggestions were made for the improvement of research and pedagogy, the opening out of new interdisciplinary fields of study, the networking of UGCassisted departments enjoying research support, and the revitalization of the already moribund ELT centres. While the 1993 Panel recommended a survey of the extent to which the 1989 CDC model curriculum had been adopted across India, it took a cautious position on the merits of a ‘core curriculum,’ advising that the views of universities be canvassed, given that they enjoyed academic autonomy. It was a later Panel that initiated discussion on a new Curriculum Development Committee, which was finally constituted by the UGC with Sukanta Chaudhuri as convenor. This resulted in the framing of a revised UGC Model Curriculum for English in 2001. As the preamble to that document recognized, the framing of a university curriculum in English presented a special challenge because at some level or other, virtually all students within the Indian university system study a certain amount of English. This is not the case with any other subject. Planning the curriculum thereby becomes a complex task with broader social implications beyond the academic ones. (UGC 2001, p. 11) The CDC mandated a certain minimum degree of linguistic competence to be ensured by any programme having ‘English’ in its title, but accepted that levels of attainment would vary. It provided minimum guidelines for general or compulsory, elective or optional English courses, as well as Honours or Major, and MA programmes. In each of these, there is a range of course options, with a repeated

30  Chaudhuri emphasis on the freedom that any university should retain to frame its own syllabi. Further, despite the fact that the UGC had already urged departments across India to adopt the semester system, the model curriculum makes allowance for the possibility of an annual programme still being in place. At the MA level, the suggested choice is between a ‘straight’ degree in English Language and Literature, and a comparativist degree in English and Literary Studies. Arguing that ‘there is neither need nor justification for the wide continuance of traditional English programmes of British or Anglophone bent’, the document states that: in our present postcolonial phase of culture, the ‘English’ programme should incorporate Indian literature in English translation, as well as the comparativist study of texts from many (especially Indian) languages, and proceed thence to wider historical, cultural and theoretical studies. In all such programmes, the subject of study is increasingly non-English: the English language only provides the medium of study. (UGC 2001, p. 15) A range of optional papers is proposed, on topics from ‘The History of the Book’ to ‘Colonial and Postcolonial Studies’, ‘The Study of English in India’, ‘Indian Writing in English’, ‘Literature and Gender’, ‘Translation and Translation Theory’, ‘Theory and Methodology of Comparative Literature’, ‘Mass Communication and Media Studies’, and ‘Creative Writing’ (UGC 2001, p. 33). At the BA Honours/Major level, the CDC suggests division of texts by genre, rather than by historical periods. However, it is important to note the following provision heading the lists of sample syllabi: The sample syllabi given below are meant only as models and suggestions. They are neither exclusive nor comprehensive; not worked-out syllabi but merely a set of suggested items, structures and parameters. Departments are not expected to follow them in toto, but to design their own courses using these materials, or even fashion totally new courses of equivalent length and substance. Hence we have not provided samples for every cluster/paper and alternative proposed above; but all types of proposed clusters/papers can be constructed on the models given here. (UGC 2001, p. 35) The framers of the Model Curriculum can be seen to be treading a careful line between the expectation that university English courses should be primarily directed towards literary and cultural studies, however broadly the latter might be defined, and the recognition that ‘general’ courses for non-specializing students must ensure minimum competence for professional purposes: At all levels, provision has been made for incorporation of applied, functional and professional skills in English. Such applied skills require practical training

Higher Education policy and ES in India 31 and professional exposure. Efforts should be made to ensure such exposure, preferably in a professional environment, but in any case through classroom interaction with professionals. Special workshops, training programmes and fieldwork need to be conducted to familiarize teachers with these areas as well. The need for computer skills needs no iteration today. For students of language and literature, skill in word-processing, data-processing and use of the Internet are particularly essential. These have not been incorporated in the proposed curricula, as they might be held to be basic working skills rather than ones intrinsic to the discipline. However, we cannot stress too strongly the need for training programmes, within the total purview of university services and programmes, for students of English as of all other subjects (UGC 2001, pp. 14–15) What the Model Curriculum does not argue or discuss is the issue of the language of instruction. Rather, it assumes that there will be some English requirements in the university curriculum (as there were in the school curriculum) for all students, although such requirements were by no means universal across India. In many states students of the basic sciences had no compulsory language requirements at all, and elsewhere, too, undergraduates were not required to pass the ‘compulsory’ English courses. State Universities for the most part allowed degree programmes to be taught and examined in the regional languages, with somewhat greater use of English at the postgraduate level. While it is a common assumption that courses at Central Universities are taught in English, because they attract students from every part of the country, this is nowhere stated in the Central Universities Act. Indeed there are well-known instances (such as Visva Bharati in Santiniketan, West Bengal, founded by the poet Rabindranath Tagore) where the regional language is used as a matter of principle. The 1993 UGC Panel and the CDC of 2001 seem to have foreseen with reasonable accuracy the general developments in ES considered as a university discipline. They provide for the turn towards cultural studies and world literatures in English, the inclusion of Indian literatures in translation, and the shift away from the British-American canon towards postcolonial studies and a range of specialist topics. Naturally they could not predict each possibility in this last category, and some of the suggestions in the UGC Model Curriculum, novel in their time, may seem familiar to us today. Moreover, these documents do not anticipate one of the issues generating bitter controversy over the past two or three years: the feasibility of a four-year ‘liberal arts’ programme in the Indian context. Entirely geared towards the NPE’s suggested 10+2+3 model of progression from secondary through ‘higher secondary’ or intermediate to the three-year Bachelor’s degree, the UGC Panel and CDC proposals do not consider the quite different requirements of a liberal arts degree allowing free choice of a range of courses from varying disciplines, and some research options at both undergraduate and MA levels. It is of course true that the UGC has for the moment shot down the four-year liberal arts programmes initiated by some private universities in India (as well as the four-year undergraduate programme at Delhi University) but no

32  Chaudhuri revision of the CDC Model Curriculum could afford to ignore these possibilities today. Nor, for that matter, would it be prudent to ignore the possibility of online components in the curriculum, even if full-scale MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) on the model of Harvard and MIT’s EdX, Stanford’s Coursera, or Udacity, are not immediately envisaged. In fact the National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (NPTEL) launched by the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science, and e-Pathshala, offered by the UGC itself, have certainly made a start by offering web-based teaching programmes in a range of subjects.

Globalization and its discontents Could there, in fact, be a revision of the UGC Model Curriculum of 2001? As a body, the UGC is itself under threat from a number of proposed changes. The Yash Pal Committee Report (MHRD 2009) had proposed that it be superseded by a new body to be called the National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER). A bill was moved for this purpose by the last government, but hectic lobbying by the UGC and other interest groups led to its being stalled at various stages. Currently (this is written in 2014), the continued viability of the UGC is being examined by one of its former chairpersons under direction from the new government. So it is not clear whether the UGC can, in the current climate, command the sort of commitment and sense of purpose demonstrated by the Panels and CDCs of the 1980s and 1990s. It is also arguable that the object of attention has itself changed – or, at least, moved out of range. Indeed, the lack of any policy directives concerning English in HE over the past ten years and more is indicative of a much larger change in the HE ecosystem, brought about, I would suggest, by globalization, and rendering disciplinary interventions obsolete. The Ministry of Human Resource Development’s own website and its yearly Report to the People on Education proclaim its continued commitment to language education, overseen by a Language Bureau whose primary aim is to protect India’s ‘pluralistic’ language policy. The website mentions six language universities, three devoted to Sanskrit, one to Hindi, one to Urdu, and one to English and Foreign Languages. This last was created by the English and Foreign Languages University Act of 2006 out of the older Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages (CIEFL), which, together with the Central Institute of Indian Languages (CIIL) had been entrusted with the general responsibility of monitoring language education and research in India. However, while CIEFL and EFLU have accomplished some useful work in ELT training, postcolonial studies and translation, it would be absurd to claim that any single institution could oversee, or even influence, ES in India. Not only are there far more distinguished English departments elsewhere in India – in respect of both students and faculty – producing more and better research, but the very idea of a language university has clearly been left far behind in India’s development. More contentiously, one could argue that a language policy too is a matter of the past, given the extent to which India has surrendered to the pressures of the global market.

Higher Education policy and ES in India 33 In 2006, the NCERT National Focus Group on the Teaching of English (dealing exclusively with school education) presented its recommendations in the form of a Position Paper. This began with the following statement: English is in India today a symbol of people’s aspirations for quality in education and a fuller participation in national and international life. Its colonial origins now forgotten or irrelevant, its initial role in independent India, tailored to higher education (as a ‘library language’, a ‘window on the world’), now felt to be insufficiently inclusive socially and linguistically, the current status of English stems from its overwhelming presence on the world stage and the reflection of this in the national arena. It is predicted that by 2010, a surge in English-language learning will include a third of the world’s people (Graddol 1997). The opening up of the Indian economy in the 1990s has coincided with an explosion in the demand for English in our schools because English is perceived to open up opportunities. (NCERT 2006, p. 1) In fact, the Group went on, ‘[t]he level of introduction of English has now become a matter of political response to people’s aspirations, rendering almost irrelevant an academic debate on the merits of a very early introduction (NCERT 2006, p. 1). What is being elided here (‘render[ed] almost irrelevant’) is a matter that had provoked intense and extremely painful controversy right through the previous decades. Following the arguments of many highly respected linguists in favour of education in the mother tongue or at least in the regional language, and faced with a high rate of failure in both English and mathematics, the public education system in India, both state and central, had largely chosen not just to teach in the regional language or in Hindi, but also to delay the introduction of English as a subject (in some states till as late as Class Six). Bitterly opposed by ambitious middle-class families conscious of the material benefits of fluency in English in later life, this policy led to a mushrooming of ‘English-medium’ private schools, both in large cities and in small towns in India, and created a marked class divide between the private and state systems. If HE in India had maintained the direction proposed for it by the University Education Commission Report of 1948–9, with English being gradually phased out in HE in favour of regional languages and Hindi, the school policy would not have mattered: indeed, education in the vernacular would have been an advantage. Unfortunately, as the 1992 Programme of Action revealed, not only had the three-language formula failed, but HE in India remained very largely committed to English as the chosen medium of instruction. At the turn of the century, with globalization well under way, the attraction of English presented itself in a new light, untainted (so it seemed) with the shadows of the past. The most emphatic policy statement from this new perspective was made by the National Knowledge Commission of India, a heterogeneous group of industry and finance professionals, economists and scientists, who had been appointed to haul India into the twenty-first century and transform India’s ailing educational

34  Chaudhuri system into a ‘knowledge economy’. Whatever the merits of this larger ambition, critically reviewed by professional academics (Chaudhuri 2011), its policy impact was immediately felt. In their Report to the Nation 2006–2009 the National Knowledge Commission put forward three major proposals, all of which were acted upon. First of all, they proposed the passing of the Right to Education Act, a shamefully delayed piece of legislation which was approved in October 2008 and became law on 3 September 2009, making education a fundamental right for all children between 6 and 14. Second, they recommended the teaching of English in schools from Class One. Thirdly, they proposed a National Translation Mission which would urgently take up the task of translation of ‘knowledge texts’ from English or foreign languages into the languages of the Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. In fact, therefore, they were tacitly approving HE in regional languages (for which the translated texts would be required). Yet the impact of this provision was far outweighed by their espousal of English as an essential language of commerce, science and technology, an advantage that India could not afford to surrender. Sandwiched between the Right to Education and the National Translation Mission, the recommendation on the teaching of English was the sole instrument of NKC language policy: Right to Education: The 86th Constitutional amendment act made the Right to Education a Fundamental Right. However, to enhance universal access to quality education for Indian children, NKC recommends that there is a need for a central legislation affirming the Right to Education. This must entail a financial provision requiring the central government to provide the bulk of the additional funds needed for realising the Right to Education. The legislation should also lay down minimum standards of quality in school education and for it to be effective, the responsibility of the Government at different levels, must be recognised and made justiciable. Language: In the current scenario an understanding and command over the English language is a most important determinant of access to higher education, employment possibilities and social opportunities. NKC therefore recommends that the teaching of English as a language should be introduced, along with the first language (either mother tongue or the regional language) of the child, starting from Class I. Further, NKC has also focused on the need to reform the pedagogy of English language teaching and the use of all available media to supplement traditional teaching methods. Translation: In a multilingual country, translation should play a critical role in making knowledge available to different linguistic groups. NKC has recommended developing translation as an industry and setting up a National Translation Mission with a focus on promoting translation activities across the country. The Mission would undertake a host of activities such as setting up a storehouse of information on all aspects of translation, providing quality training and education for translators, and creating and maintaining various tools for translation. (National Knowledge Commission 2009, p. 13)

Higher Education policy and ES in India 35 A subsequent chapter of the National Knowledge Commission’s Report to the Nation devoted to ‘Language’ (pp. 27–30) is in fact entirely about English, and elaborates upon the advantages of starting English as early as possible in school, in order to ‘build an inclusive society and transform India into a knowledge society’ (p. 23). Instead of the three-language formula, we have a specific recommendation that ‘at the end of twelve years of schooling, every student is proficient in at least two languages’ (p. 30). The National Knowledge Commission’s Report to the Nation contains a substantial section on HE, building on the Commission’s earlier Note on Higher Education published in 2006, but neither attempts to reassess the place of English in HE. Yet by insisting on the global importance of English, the NKC confirms implicitly the ‘rule of English’ in universities, suggesting that those who cannot seize that advantage will be left behind by a rapidly ‘modernising’ world. One catchphrase of the Report, ‘the building of a just and inclusive society’, is certainly linked to the extension of English proficiency to the disadvantaged millions. And indeed there is a powerful Dalit discourse which argues for English as an instrument of Dalit empowerment in India, deliberately denied to countless underprivileged children by an upper caste politics that forces government schools to teach in regional languages, and delays or impoverishes the quantum of English instruction (Vulli 2014, pp. 1–6). The National Knowledge Commission’s instrumental view of English may prompt some larger reflections. In the fourth chapter of his book Culture and Imperialism, Edward Said lamented the peculiarly global phenomenon of ‘low, uninteresting, and attenuated’ English he discovered in one of the Gulf States he visited in 1985. Asked by a national university there to evaluate its English programmes, he found them stale and orthodox, although they attracted great numbers of students, who proposed to end up working for airlines, or banks, in which English was the worldwide lingua franca. This all but terminally consigned English to the level of a technical language stripped of expressive and aesthetic characteristics and denuded of any critical or self-conscious dimension. You learned English to use computers, respond to orders, transmit telexes, decipher manifests, and so forth. That was all. (Said 1994, p. 369) Understandable though Said’s disappointment is – and however familiar the context of which he speaks – we may want to qualify his observations. Despite the apocalyptic vision of Susan Sontag’s essay ‘The World as India’, it would not be true to say that the English produced by India’s HE institutions is the English of the call centre or the bank. There is in fact a vigorous tradition of scholarly and intellectual activity, as well as creative and critical output, in English in the Indian academy. Such activity is obviously not confined to the literature classroom but extends to the social sciences and philosophy. Moreover, English departments are by no means stale and orthodox: receptive to changes in canon and curriculum, they have led new work in interdisciplinary fields, especially women’s studies,

36  Chaudhuri film, media and the ‘new humanities’, digital scholarship, literary theory and material cultures for well over three decades. Some of the best creative work in both English and Indian languages has come out of English departments, though there is room for alarm at the increased dominance of English as a ‘global’ language of culture (Chaudhuri 2000). Yet to some extent national policy over the past decade (not educational policy specifically) has tended to ignore or pass over the manifest strengths of this tradition in favour of the merely mechanical and technical advantages of working with English. Thus the Twelfth Plan Approach Paper released by the Planning Commission in 2011 speaks of English as the means through which internationalization can be achieved, by producing graduates with ‘international competencies and skills’. It is rapidly apparent that such competencies are in fact tied to ‘the historical advantage in higher education (particularly among emerging market economies) [gained from] the widespread use of [the] English language’ through which ‘India can potentially become a global hub for higher education’ (Planning Commission 2011, p. 103). This is suggested too by the University Grants Commission’s submissions to the Planning Commission (UGC 2011) and the relevant sectors of the Plan itself (Planning Commission of India, 2013). So too the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA: National Higher Education Mission), commencing its activities with a statement of purpose in 2013, announces: Development of English Language Programmes: This is an area that has the potential to be extremely productive while thinking about the scope of internationalization of higher education as many foreign students who choose to come to India do not have a background of education in English. Since knowledge of English is now nearly indispensable in a global context and since most of higher education in India is conducted in that medium, our educators have a natural advantage. The faculty in the concerned university then can – along with the specific course that the student has enrolled for – offer courses in communication and writing skills in English. These courses have been seen to be extremely popular among foreign students and can be leveraged to best effect and the course showcased as part of an all-round holistic educational experience that would perhaps be more attractive than a course with a single focus. (MHRD 2013, p. 137) In the absence of anything that can be described as a national policy for the development of ES in HE, these pronouncements are more wishful thinking than anything else. If HE is to be internationalized, if both home and foreign students are to be taught basic English skills, there has to be a serious upgrading of ELT training. At the same time, it is necessary to take stock of the innovative and often very exciting work being done by English departments in Indian universities, and to consult them about national policy initiatives. In fact consultation at various levels has been part of the National Translation Mission, which has certainly energized large numbers of university teachers and pulled them into a worthwhile enterprise.

Higher Education policy and ES in India 37 English departments all over India, which have in many cases given birth to centres or new departments of gender studies, cultural studies, media studies, film studies, postcolonial studies, archiving and bibliographical projects, editing and publishing courses, and fed translation activity and creative writing, are no longer engaged in the pursuit of a single discipline. Indeed the CDC exercise cannot be repeated, because English no longer has an ideal or prescriptive curriculum. Perhaps the neglect of policy-makers is benign, but it would be dangerous to substitute official neglect by official apathy. The case of the UPSC candidates suggests that English is still, to some extent at least, a problem. The problem will not go away, and it will not be solved unless a new review of ES is initiated at the national level.

References Apter, Emily (2005). The Translation Zone: A New Comparative Literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Apter, Emily (2013). Against World Literature: On the Politics of Untranslatability. London: Verso. Calcutta University Commission, 1917–1919: Report. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing. 1919. Casanova, Pascale (2004). The World Republic of Letters. Trans. M. B. DeBevoise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Central Universities Act, 2009. No. 25 of 2009. Gazette of India. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. 20 March 2009. Chaudhuri, Supriya (2000). ‘Globspeak and Ingcap: or the Spread of Global English’. In Globalisation and India: A Multi-Dimensional Perspective. Ed. Purusottam Bhattacharya and Ajitava Ray Chaudhuri. New Delhi: Lancers. Chaudhuri, Supriya (2011). ‘What is to be Done? Economies of Knowledge’. Thesis 11: Critical Theory and Historical Sociology, 105:1, May. 7–22. Commonwealth Universities Yearbook: A Directory of the Universities of the Commonwealth and the Handbook of their Association. (1987). London: The Association of Commonwealth Universities. Curzon, George Nathaniel, Marquis of Curzon (1902). Speeches of Lord Curzon of Kedleston, vol. 2: 1900–1902. Calcutta: Office of the Superintendent of Government Printing, India. Damrosch, David (2003). What is World Literature? Princeton: Princeton University Press. Damrosch, David (2013). ‘Global Comparatism and the Question of Language’. PMLA, 128:3, May. 622–8. English and Foreign Languages University Act, 2006. Government of India. Graddol, David (1997). The Future of English. The British Council. Digital Edition, 2000: http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-elt-future.pdf Indian Educational Policy, 1913. Being a Resolution issued by the Governor-General in Council on the 21st February 1913. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing, India. Krishnamurti, Bh. (2007). ‘The Regional Language vis-a-vis English as the medium of instruction in Higher Education: The Indian Dilemma’. In Debi Prasanna Pattanayak, ed. Multilingualism in India. Multilingual Matters, 61. Delhi: Orient Blackswan. 15–24.

38  Chaudhuri MHRD (Ministry of Human Resource Development) (1992). Programme of Action, 1992. National Policy on Education 1986. New Delhi: Department of Education, Government of India. MHRD (1998). National Policy on Education 1986. (With National Policy on Education 1968). New Delhi: Department of Education, Government of India. MHRD (2009). Report of the Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education [Yash Pal Committee Report]. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development. MHRD (2010, 2011, 2012). Report to the People on Education, Vol. 1 2009–10, Vol. 2 2010–11, Vol. 3 2011–12. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development. MHRD in association with Tata Institute of Social Sciences (2013). Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan [RUSA]. National Higher Education Mission. New Delhi: Ministry of Human Resource Development. September. Moretti, Franco (2000). ‘Conjectures on World Literature’. New Left Review 1, 54–68. NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training) (2005). National Curriculum Framework. New Delhi: NCERT. NCERT (2006). National Focus Group on Teaching of English. Position Paper. New Delhi: NCERT. National Knowledge Commission (2006). Note on Higher Education. 29 November. New Delhi. http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/recommendations/ HigherEducationNote.pdf National Knowledge Commission. (2009) Report to the Nation, 2006–2009. New Delhi: Government of India. Planning Commission of India (2011). Faster, Sustainable and More Inclusive Growth: An Approach to the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017). New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India. Planning Commission of India (2013). Twelfth Five-Year Plan, 2012–2017. Social Sectors. Vol. III. New Delhi: Sage. Report of the University Education Commission. 1948–1949. Vol. 1. New Delhi: Ministry of Education. Government of India, 1962. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Ministry of Law and Justice. Gazette of India (Extraordinary), 27 August 2009. Said, Edward (1994). Culture and Imperialism. London: Vintage. Sontag, Susan (2007). ‘The World as India’. In At the Same Time: Essays and Speeches. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux. Spivak, Gayatri (2003). Death of a Discipline. New York: Columbia University Press. Sridhar, Kamal K. (1996). ‘Language in Education: Minorities and Multilingualism in India’. International Review of Education, 42:4. 327–347. UGC (University Grants Commission) (1993). Report of the UGC Panel for English and Western Languages. New Delhi: Aryan Books International. UGC (2001). UGC Model Curriculum: English and Other Western Languages. New Delhi: University Grants Commission. UGC (2011). Inclusive and Qualitative Expansion of Higher Education. 12th Five Year Plan. 2012–2017. New Delhi: University Grants Commission. Vulli, Dhanaraju (2014). ‘English and Medium of Instruction. Dalit Discourse in Indian Education’. Research Journal of Educational Sciences. 2:2, May. 1–6.

Part II

Professional concerns

This page intentionally left blank

3 The profession of English Studies 1 Policy, pedagogy, scholarship, and the market Suman Gupta and Richard Allen This chapter and the next offer a selective record of two workshops exploring prospects for English Studies (ES) in India. The workshops capitalized on the many years of experience of teaching and research participants brought to the table, but the discussion was also cognisant of the difficulty of capturing any single coherent and overarching sense of how ES works on the ground in the large and diverse Indian higher education (HE) sector. Wherever we look, the constituent elements of ES – literature, linguistics, ELT methodology, cultural studies, creative writing – come together in a variety of ways which it is impossible to resolve into a coherent enterprise. The scale of the Indian HE sector necessarily produces variegation. Regional differences, accentuated by distinctive linguistic environments and state education policies, play a significant part in how ES is pursued. At the level of schooling and thereafter, states have often followed localized language policies and put somewhat different emphasis on which aspects of the discipline needs attention. The enormous variety of HE institutions divides the view and creates multiple vantage points based on experiences in central universities, state universities, private universities, colleges for undergraduate instruction, technology and business institutes, vocational institutions, specialist institutions (focused on agriculture or medicine, for instance), distance learning institutions, adult education institutions, etc. Within each of these categories there are significant variations: in infrastructural arrangements; in perspectives on HE teaching in general; in ideas about structuring courses; in engagement with scholarly activities, etc. Finally, differences in the backgrounds, experience, ideological affiliations, aims and ambitions of those who work in HE ES create a whole range of insights. Conscious that any single account of HE ES in India today can thus hardly avoid seeming implausible, untenably impressionistic and partisan, the workshop participants saw their work as valuable and illuminating and, as importantly, as providing a pattern for others so that ultimately a wider picture can be built. Participants in the workshops included persons with affiliations to a range of HE institutions, different levels of academic experience, different sorts of professional investments, engagement in different aspects of ES; participants also

42  Gupta and Allen included those who are not directly employed in the HE sector but have a professional interest in ES as employers, authors, publishers, academic funders, and so on. Issues were explored from ground level and from the point of view of practitioners rather than theoreticians. Participants brought their expertise to the workshops but were encouraged to contribute to discussions with a broader or general view of ES in mind – and did so. Sessions were focused on particular issues relevant to ES, and each session came with questions to prompt discussion. In each session some participants, identified below as ‘discussants’ were asked particularly to be ready to take a position to further the argument. Generally discussions in each session departed frequently from the questions and flowed freely, often returning to points taken up in other sessions or raising points of tangential interest for that session. The aim was to capture ideas from this loosely structured and discussion-centred dialogue, following patterns of multi-vocal exchanges rather a sustained mono-vocal argument. As foreshadowed in the opening remarks above, inevitably there were some noteworthy limitations – or one might say, specificities – in the range of views. The workshops addressed ES in Indian HE, but both were held in Delhi and most of the participants were employed in the Delhi region. To bring in some differences in the discussions a few participants were invited from other regions of India and made valuable contributions, but they were a definite minority. Pragmatic factors lay behind the choices here, but casting the net wider would have led to a dilution in the specificity in the range of HE institutions and ES-related experience which are available within a particular region and which necessarily work with some degree of interrelatedness. Delhi is apt to appear distant from the educational arrangements and social habitus of smaller towns and provincial areas, and even from less politically mainstream cities, but it offers a richness which we were keen to explore. All these participants, many of whom had wide experience of HE ES beyond Delhi, felt that the specificities of the discussions did have a wider relevance for the discipline in India. Two absences more clearly risked limiting discussions, though other participants were thankfully able to make up a good deal of the loss. Numerous requests to the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) for a spokesperson on HE policy were disregarded. Invited speakers on some areas of particular interest in these workshops (such as education and news media, English in relation to the aspirations of Dalit constituencies) failed to reply or to appear after accepting invitations.1 It is common for workshop symposiums of this kind to take place under conditions of anonymity. Attribution here of at least the main contributions in the discussions reflects the mutual confidence of the participants and in turn allows the reader to reflect on the relation of the opinion to the speaker’s situation. In this same spirit while it is, of course, unlikely that the reporting voice can avoid interfering with the various views presented, every effort was made to present different views faithfully.2 At the end of the chapter the authors of the report have then allowed themselves freedom in selecting a series of key threads,

Policy, pedagogy, scholarship, market 43 worthy of further discussion. The first workshop took place at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, on 5–6 April 2012, the second workshop at Jamia Milia Islamia, Delhi, on 15–16 February 2013. The participants in the workshop (and their affiliation at the time of the workshop) were: Richard Allen (Open University UK), Mohammad Asaduddin (Jamia Millia), Tapan Basu (Delhi University), Saugata Bhaduri (Jawaharlal Nehru University), Debanjan Chakrabarti (British Council), Prasanta Chakravarty (Delhi University), Subarno Chattarji (Delhi University), Supriya Chaudhuri (Jadavpur University), Divya Dwivedi (IIT Delhi), Anuradha Ghosh (Jamia Millia), Suman Gupta (Open University UK), Vikas Jain (Shivaji College), Ruchi Kaushik (Sri Ram College of Commerce), Rama Mathew (Central Institute of Education, Delhi University), Rohini Mokashi-Punekar (IIT Gauhati), Makarand Paranjape (Jawaharlal Nehru University), G. J. V. Prasad (Jawaharlal Nehru University), Harriet Raghunathan (Jesus and Mary College), Mukesh Ranjan (Jamia Millia), Mukti Sanyal (Bharati College), Sumitra Thoidingjam (Jamia Millia), Harish Trivedi (Delhi University), Poonam Trivedi (Indraprastha College).

Session-by-Session Reports Session 1: Central-level education policy and English Studies Session questions: (a) With reference to the XIth and XIIth plans,3 to what extent are centrallevel education policies relevant to ES generally and particularly at the HE level? (b) What other policy documents at this level are relevant to HE ES? Discussants: Richard Allen (RA), Saugata Bhaduri (SB), Debanjan Chakrabarti (DC), Supriya Chaudhuri (SupC), G. J. V. Prasad (GJV), Mukesh Ranjan (MR), Harish Trivedi (HT)

HT prefaced the session by observing challengingly that he felt there was no connection between central-level education policy and ES. He observed that in Delhi University there has been little impetus for change since the curriculum revision of the late 1990s4 which had had the effect of opening it up – to make it less a study of British literature and more of Indian and world literature, as well as including popular cultural texts and texts in other media. However there was no sense now of an intellectual manifesto for change, only a desire for more posts and more money. He doubted whether ES are truly popular in India, and suspected that it is not as message (literary texts) but as medium (a way of learning a language which helps career prospects and material aspirations) that the discipline is relevant. ES in India have been a vehicle for the aspirations of the middle class or elites and fostered inequality.

44  Gupta and Allen MR and SB offered somewhat differently nuanced accounts of the relevance of the plans to the discipline. SB noted that the published XIth Plan was described as a ‘national education plan’ in the Prime Minister’s Foreword, and gave an optimistic account of developments by citing growing budget allocation to education (with a significant increase for HE), growing enrolment, and infrastructural investment (including a plan to establish 30 new central universities). It also specifically mentioned ‘promotion and development of English and foreign languages’. However the entire emphasis here was on English in the primary/secondary school context, understood entirely in terms of its vocational utility as a language. The plan was unlikely to make a significant difference to ES as currently pursued in Indian HE. In its discussion of HE the plan focused on the development of skills and on expansion in Engineering and Medicine. MR noted that in the XIIth Plan a further increase in HE budgets was proposed. Action to develop 22 languages, including English, was mentioned; the emphasis on education for employment was to the advantage of ES, especially for language studies (because English is an asset from this perspective). In his view this meant that ES are going ‘from strength to strength’ in India. The focus then is to be on developing pedagogic practices which will enhance language skills and develop international-level competency. He cited recent figures of research project funding in the Humanities at his university, Jamia Millia, and was hopeful of future developments. MR also felt that the presence of a highly skilled HE sector together with low costs could make India a hub for international students. SupC observed that the good health of ES in India was linked to the desire among students for competence in the English language which has benefited ES almost accidentally. The emphasis on literature among teachers in the discipline in fact means that academics are approaching a ‘future towards which our back is turned’ so far as government policy is concerned. SupC argued that it was the responsibility of the ES community to recognize the demands of the government, to understand its values and work with this. She gave a brief overview of the current education context, touching particularly on the Right to Education Act (RTE) of 2009,5 and the provisions for compulsory education in English at schools. She recalled previous policy discussions at the UGC in the 1990s.6 No policy was enacted on their recommendations but the deliberations were possibly valuable and could be considered further under changing circumstances. DC similarly emphasized the short-sightedness of focusing ES exclusively on literature and being dismissive of language teaching. He gave further details of policy developments in addition to the RTE, drawing attention to the 2005 National Curriculum Framework7 and the recent National Vocational Education and Qualifications Framework (NVEQF).8 For him it was important that the aspiration to English language competence was especially strong amongst traditionally deprived constituencies such as Dalits.9 In this context the gap between the English language which students engaged with in ES and competence in the work-oriented English language to which they aspired was significant.

Policy, pedagogy, scholarship, market 45 RA said that several of the issues raised here had been debated in relation to UK HE, especially apropos increased access to HE and modelling financial arrangements, and that he was able to discern echoes of the kind of language that appeared in British education policy documents in the Indian ones. The British experience, he felt, had shown that increase in funding often came with an increased desire for control. There were three thrusts in the British education policy that were significant here: first, the creation of internal markets within faculties and between universities leading to competition for students and funds; second, bifurcation in the funding arrangements for research and teaching with research now funded predominantly by external grants (ultimately, the idea is that teaching would pay for itself, and so would research); and third, that the notion of competitive self-sustenance of research and teaching has meant the establishment of accounting and performance gauges and demands for transparency. GJV summed up the current debate in the discipline as being between literacy and literature, and confirmed, as did HT, that English language teaching has conventionally been looked down upon and has remained under-resourced in most Indian universities.

Session 2: Students and teachers Session questions: (a) Are current HE ES curricula and pedagogic methods responsive to student needs and demands? (b) Further to (a), how should the interests of students be taken into account in ES, if at all? Discussants: Subarno Chattarji (SubC), Divya Dwivedi (DD), Vikas Jain (VJ), Rohini Mokashi-Punekar (RMP), Harriet Raghunathan (HR), Sumitra Thoidingjam (ST)

DD drew on her experience as research scholar and teaching assistant at Delhi IIT to argue that students generally have a functional approach to the discipline – to achieve good grades and thus better their employment prospects. This powerful motivation in student engagement with ES is however disregarded in universities, as she found also while teaching at Delhi University. There is little systematic information on student expectations; teachers feel concerned about the perceived disconnection between what they teach and what students want. She noted a gap between the poor level of English proficiency of students enrolling in universities and the fairly high level of language proficiency assumed in the programmes, such that even a highly selective IIT has to offer remedial English classes. However, overall anecdotal evidence was that ES seems in general to deliver what students seek; teachers seem to be ‘doing something right, but we don’t know what it is’. DD also noted the predominance of women students in ES. ST made substantially similar points about student expectations in view of her varied experience of being

46  Gupta and Allen a student in Manipur and Delhi and teacher in Delhi University and Jamia. Her experience was also of a significantly higher proportion of women among students of English, and a gender-based difference in attitude in engaging with ES. She also noted a difference between undergraduate and graduate levels in English proficiency and academic interests – a streamlining takes place with progression through degrees. Interestingly, looking back to issues of central policy, she observed that there were no systematic arrangements for teacher assessments or teaching quality assurance in institutions where she had been a student or a teacher. VJ and HR based their observations on questionnaire-based surveys that they had conducted in their classrooms. VJ’s questionnaire was administered to 40 students in three courses at Shivaji College Delhi (Politics students with a qualifying paper in English, Political Science and Cultural Studies with a similar paper, and Business English), and sought information on five points: level of education of family; family income status; level of school education; expectations of the university English course; whether those expectations were being met. The results were interesting but the diverse responses did not easily create a single meaningful picture. However, VJ confirmed again that students are not interested in literature but in improving their language skills. In his view too, most college teachers of English were ill-equipped to teach the language skills which students expect to acquire; college teachers generally prepare for their careers through MPhil or PhD work which has no relation to undergraduate teaching. Faced with literary study, a significant number of students were unable to access texts because their schooling in English had been inadequate. VJ concluded by saying that the problems facing HE ES needed also to be addressed at the school level. HR’s questionnaire was addressed to two groups of Jesus and Mary College students of English Honours and Pass, and posed primarily three questions: whether they envisage doing a higher or further degree and in what field; whether they wish or intend to work and in what sector; whether the English course was useful/fun in view of their responses to the above. The results here contrasted with those from Shivaji College and showed the diversity within Delhi University colleges. A few students wished for more emphasis on language skills, but most were satisfied with their literature course. Indeed, a fuller survey of Honours students showed a strongly favourable response to the challenge and wide-ranging nature of ES, which made them critically aware of many factors in culture and society. In this context of difference SubC observed that university programmes in English are not responsive to students’ needs and demands. In Delhi University this is due to the centralized governance structure that operates in the university; the top-down structure that is maintained at the expense of pedagogic autonomy in colleges; and the distance between faculties and colleges of Delhi University. The recent imposition of semesterization in the university,10 without allowing for such autonomy and with inadequate investment to make it work, was cited as an example of this. The university is also increasingly following policies which marketize education, something which can be seen more widely in Indian HE in the emergence of private HE providers. Evidence on the way English was being promoted as a commodity was also cited. SubC argued that a more contextualized

Policy, pedagogy, scholarship, market 47 teaching of ES would be valuable in overcoming the current disaffection with current methods of teaching. RMP observed that the IIT situation was instructive in that teachers had greater scope for autonomy there. The weakness of much school education in English, for all the apparent concentration on the subject, and the growing divide between what schools deliver in this regard and what is expected in HE generated considerable discussion in the session.

Session 3: Curriculum and pedagogic practices Session questions: With specific institutional contexts in mind, what are the dominant emphases currently in: (a) ES HE curricula setting (in terms of coverage, content, and structure); (b) ES HE teaching practices (mode of delivery, infrastructure for teaching, access to materials, assessment methods, etc.)? Discussants: Richard Allen (RA), Saugata Bhaduri (SB), Debanjan Chakrabarti (DC), Supriya Chaudhuri (SupC), Anuradha Ghosh (AG), Suman Gupta (SG), Makarand Paranjape (MP), G. J. V. Prasad (GJV), Mukti Sanyal (MS), Harish Trivedi (HT), Poonam Trivedi (PT)

AG picked up on the slippage between school and HE education in English by pointing to a ‘paradox of policy’. On the one hand, to a very large extent English is compulsorily the medium of instruction in HE. On the other hand, despite government policy, at the school level there is a considerably lower emphasis on English as medium of instruction. She felt that many of the contradictions that arise in HE ES, especially in the conflict between the demand for English competency and emphasis on English literature, could be traced to this paradox. Overall she felt it would be suicidal on both sides for ELT to be separated from English literature in Indian HE. AG also noted several doubtful preconceptions at work in relation to English: for instance, that better skills in English will foster advanced manufacturing and commercial development which creates employment, whereas there is research to suggest that this kind of development has led to lost jobs. RA wondered whether an ‘either-or’ approach to the issue of English literacy and literature could be replaced by a ‘both-and’ approach (i.e. thinking about how both could work together, thus capitalizing on both for a more productive way forward). SG suggested that the ‘either-or’ approach needs to be kept under sceptical review, since this kind of compulsory compromise may or may not be useful in ES and might narrow the discussion in the workshop unnecessarily. GJV reported briefly on the perspective offered from JNU, which is distinctive in being a post-graduate university and in having language studies in its offering of English programmes from the beginning. He charted a shift towards more literary content in the curriculum, emphasizing New Literatures in English and translation and cultural studies, though alongside a strong linguistics base. In his view this shift occurred because it was felt that ELT may start directing the whole

48  Gupta and Allen structure of knowledge in ES. Stepping back, GJV also argued that English was a ‘cementing subject’, linking regions and overcoming social barriers. This met with significant agreement; another comment made by GJV, that ‘English for Business is business for English’, found less favour. PT drew upon her experience in Delhi University to raise several questions for further discussion, especially: whether language can be taught through literature, and whether there should be less emphasis on English and more on Indian languages in Indian HE. Her own view so far as the latter was concerned was that English literary studies do have a specific place in India, but their content and delivery need to be reconsidered in terms of student needs. She then suggested that the teaching of ES was dogged by a kind of pedagogic hierarchy favouring Honours students and the teaching of literature. The normative weight put on literature at the expense of language means Pass students are obliged still to engage with English literature rather than focusing on language. MS was interested in the possibility of teaching the English language through literature. She gave a brief account of the somewhat beleaguered development of ELT in Delhi University. This began in the early 1980s with the initiative of some teachers who decided to develop ELT by moving away from the study of the literary canon and focusing instead on anthologies of texts. Often only afterwards did they engage with ELT methodologies. MS then reported on a project to devise texts that could be used by literature teachers for ELT, targeting students at different levels. SupC observed that it was important, in these deliberations, to bear in mind the particular position of the English language in India – which is overwhelmingly not that of a native language or a mother tongue, but of a second or third language. SG recalled ‘practical English’ courses in some ESL/EFL contexts and wondered whether those might be appropriate for ES students in Indian HE. He also expressed doubts about whether the terminology ‘native’/‘foreign’, questionable in itself, was applicable to India, where English is arguably not quite a ‘foreign’ language in the sense that it is in some ESL/EFL contexts. HT disagreed, saying that there are languages that are unquestionably Indian whereas English is, in India, a colonial inheritance which continues to play an imperialistic role. He argued for a debate around ES which would consider decolonizing HE, and public and corporate sectors of employment, by putting English within a more equitable perspective of Indian languages. A workshop of this kind might consider the possibility that languages like Hindi, Bengali, Tamil and so on, used by larger constituencies, should be more actively promoted in Indian HE at the expense of English, as should literature in Indian languages. This issue dominated the rest of the workshop. SG felt that the view of English as a colonial inheritance, and the idea of decolonizing education, was now a narrow and out-dated view. The growth and demand for English is now an international phenomenon, and powerfully evident in contexts with no colonial pasts (such as China and Japan). The growing demand for English literacy in India – for which there is strong evidence – is today more a symptom of that international phenomenon; a political critique of the dominance of English now needs to go beyond

Policy, pedagogy, scholarship, market 49 citing the history of the domestic context, and engage international capitalism. At various points through the session others agreed on the strength of this bottom-up demand for English literacy in India with which ES must engage. MP observed that nevertheless it is worth considering the possibility of a more equitable linguistic situation in India, and promoting Indian languages which are suffering from the dominance of English. He then cited EFL/ESL contexts where English literature is placed in parallel to the teaching of English language, and sometimes conveyed through indigenous languages; in Brazil or China, for instance, English literature is often taught in the Portuguese or Chinese languages respectively. The same could conceivably be more appropriate for the Indian context. SG felt that the English language now benefits the Indian context in international exchanges in a way which is unlikely to be easily eschewed, and should arguably be cultivated. DC noted that the allocation of a similar role as English to Indian languages, particularly the majority language Hindi, has occasionally been strongly resisted in different regions in India. SB summed up saying that the session suggested five issues that should be pursued in any enquiry into ES: (1) Why should ES be a major subject in Indian HE at all? (2) Given that ES is regarded as an appropriate subject for Indian HE, how should it be pursued? (3) How should HE faculties respond to policy changes at government level driving changes in ES from outside? (4) Is the question not just what to teach but how to teach it? and, (5) Assessment is a crucial factor in this; how should it develop?

Session 4: English language teaching Session questions: (a) What is the role of the teaching of language (as a skill) and linguistics (as a discipline) within the teaching of English Studies generally? (b) Do students use programmes centred on literature to capitalize on language skills? (c) Has a decolonization process taken place whereby a distinctive sort of (or varieties of) Indian English has now found its place both in literary production and the formal/professional spheres of English usage? If so, is this conveyed in ES programmes? Discussants: Mohammad Asaduddin (MA), Tapan Basu (TB), Debanjan Chakrabarti (DC), Suman Gupta (SG), Ruchi Kaushik (RK), Rama Mathew (RM), Harish Trivedi (HT)

MA made the following points by way of introducing this session and clarifying the background: that in a multilingual and multicultural context such as India, the teaching of English would be different from that in an English-speaking context; that the importance of translation (even at a pedagogic level within ES) should not be overlooked; that generally the English language has proved to be a

50  Gupta and Allen tool of empowerment in India (and literary studies in English has opened up critical perspectives such as post-colonialism); that, at the same time, the cultivation of English has meant that Indian languages suffer and students often have a poor grasp of their mother tongues. In response to previous discussions, MA argued that: there is a need to introduce skills-based language courses for English alongside literary study in Indian HE; language and literature shouldn’t be divorced from each other; and space should also be made for Indian pluralisms in ES factoring in varieties of Indian English. TB focused on what he regarded as the growing bifurcation of ES – whereas previously literary studies were centre stage, of late an emphatic claim on behalf of English language studies and teaching has appeared. However, he echoed earlier comments to the effect that literature teachers are not equipped to teach the language, and that policies which seek to orient the discipline as a whole towards the latter at the expense of the former have not been adequately thought through in terms of existing staffing and resources. For him there was an ideological dimension to these shifts. Literary studies have been ideologically radical, whereas language studies in India have tended to be conservative, presented as value-neutral, eschewing social struggle, but serving dominant class and caste interests. However this was challenged by, for example, Dalit championing of education in English because they regard it as having emancipative power. SG observed that thinking of language studies as conservative was misconceived – in many cases, language studies (especially with regard to English) is as, if not more, socially engaged as literary studies – and the misconception arose from thinking of language studies narrowly and exclusively in terms of ELT (a particular province of applied linguistics). DC in turn disagreed with TB’s assessment of the position of English language teaching in India, and suggested that it arose from a tendency of the literary academy to act as gate-keepers of the English language in India. He cited evidence of a contrasting non-literary approach, drawing upon, and thereby reporting on, British Council activities in India. DC mentioned various relevant outreach partnerships with both state and corporate organizations in India, and multilateral research and publication projects involving Indian and British collaborations. RM then suggested that it was useful to think in terms of: distinctions between general English teaching and purposive applied English teaching; the different considerations that relate to students’ levels of competence; and the usefulness of various methods of testing. She observed that since English is arguably not being taught adequately at school level, universities would need to respond. She cited courses that might be developed, e.g. ‘English for Advanced Reading’, ‘English for Advanced Writing’ and also referred to her own project on English Language Proficiency. In her view writing was the weakest skill and training in this skill needed to be central at the internal assessment stage. RM cited also the situation at the new Ambedkar University where training in English for academic purposes was part of the curriculum from the beginning and continued into their Masters’ courses in the form of on-going support. RM also observed that at present language teachers in colleges tend to have picked up their skills from their own experience and without training. She wanted

Policy, pedagogy, scholarship, market 51 to argue that ELT is more than just (good) experience, and that if language teaching is an English teacher’s bread and butter it needs to be legitimized and professionalized. Thus English Language Teaching/Pedagogy departments should be established in universities, separate from the English Literature Department or the Linguistics Department. Here the language courses that students needed to pursue in the university would be designed, developed and approved by those whose specialism is in ELT/pedagogy and assessment. Fully fledged research-based departments in ELT could also offer pedagogy courses more generally for beginning ELT teachers; at present only four universities offer such courses.11 Research would be pursued in such departments whereas now ELT research is only possible in Education Departments where education issues dominate. Finally, teachers who are language teachers and acquire specializations/ degrees and qualifications in ELT and SLA (Second Language Acquisition) should have avenues for promotions just as teachers in literature departments do. SG asked how sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and descriptive linguistics stand in relation to English language studies in India, since the discussion of language studies in ES seemed to be heavily dominated by ELT. RM felt that though there was some interest, the pedagogy debate was predominantly centred on the tension between literary studies and language learning.12 The final contribution by RK returned to the question of who the students of English are and what sort of input they may provide in the development of teaching practices. She had explored this in a pilot study to understand students’ attitudes to their courses and to recommend adjustments in methodology and approach in teaching. A questionnaire-based survey was conducted with 39 students at the Sri Ram College of Commerce. The questionnaire had three focuses: exploring the need for and purpose of English, rating proficiency levels and evaluating study methods. Some questions sought particularly to understand student expectations by asking them to think from the teaching perspective –for instance, by asking them to devise a course. RK reported on the results, noting in passing that 75 per cent of the students felt English should be compulsory for students in all areas. She observed that in a College of Commerce the aim of teaching English was to enable students to communicate effectively in the market place, to use literary texts as a way to think about business, and to encourage students to think for themselves.

Session 5: Scholarship and research Session questions: (a) To what extent does scholarship in ES address employment and careers? (b) In what ways does research and scholarship in the discipline engage with social and cultural issues which have a purchase beyond academic audiences? Discussants: Mohammad Asaduddin (MA), Prasanta Chakravarty (PC), Supriya Chaudhuri (SupC), Suman Gupta (SG), Rohini Mokashi-Punekar (RMP), Harish Trivedi (HT)

52  Gupta and Allen SG described the system of research funding in England, and the effect that having to specify the public ‘impact’ of their research was having on academics.13 He also referred to funding models in Australian, US and Dutch systems. In his view any answers to the question ‘how can research in ES develop economic impact?’ were heavily circumscribed by the conservative ways in which ‘economic impact’ was conceived. A more complex understanding of economic and other kinds of impacts (and their connections) in relation to academic research might be more valuable. He asked participants to reflect, for example, on the ‘impact’ of the current workshop and project. It was generally agreed that these questions did not currently form part of academic discourse in Indian HE. MA commented that not much had changed structurally in Indian research systems in recent years. However, the new and broader subject areas that are being defined and instituted in some universities are allowing new questions to emerge. RMP described her different experience in an out-of-Delhi IIT, the IIT Gauhati. Looking back to earlier questions, she noted that the weakness of school teaching of English and the often low competence of entrants in English were still significant at research level. RMP said the approach to literature in the IITs was always comparative and she argued for a similar approach in research. The example of teaching of and research into Dalit literature was also instructive here in demonstrating new approaches. Evidence showed that advocates of Dalit literature sought to establish their own perspective, avoiding the historicized or strongly contextualized manner found in mainstream approaches because writers did not wish to see themselves as part of a historically conditioned phenomenon. SupC gave an account of the current condition of research in ES in India. Research is largely funded by the government and by international bodies. Attitudes to research are likely to vary across different categories of institutions, such as central universities, state universities, colleges, etc. SupC observed that the fields of research have diversified and expanded in a salutary manner to take in cultural studies, media studies, gender and caste studies, etc., without losing strengths in more conventional areas of English literary research. She cited her institution, Jadavpur University as a state university that was particularly successful in terms of research and gave examples of several innovative projects and centres in Jadavpur University. In terms of structure she felt there were weaknesses. Research activity and outputs are not now adequately collated in bibliographical records for ES, though she felt this had been done in the 1970s and 1980s.14 Research activity is tracked now through the National Assessment and Accreditation Council’s five-yearly assessment of every university.15 Others described how universities had recently established systems for accounting and giving incentives for research, but it was generally held that these are not robust. Doubts were also expressed about the effectiveness of peer reviewing practices in scholarly publications, and regulation of plagiarism and research quality. It was suggested that behind all this was the fact that research output was hampered by the exhausting effect of teaching loads in many institutions. SupC concluded by

Policy, pedagogy, scholarship, market 53 suggesting that an important way forward is through international collaborations, focused on – for example – Digital Humanities. HT recounted changes since the 1960s and a shift from broader scholarship to a narrower conception of research which had become ‘professionalized’ and more measured by outputs. He saw benefit in research which adopted a more contextualized approach. HT thought this was not encouraged within what he described as a ‘scientific’ funding model, where discoveries were seen as something to be funded only on first occurrence. He noted the large increase in the number of PhDs, but noted also that the field of study had become narrow – in his experience the majority of PhDs were focused now on regional identity and literature in an Indian language. Finally he looked for a closer link between research and teaching. PC discussed the impact that the gradual marketization of HE is having on scholarship, especially for ES. In particular, he cited three examples of what he considered were valuable research projects in literary and cultural studies, touching on issues of particular moment in current Indian contexts. These projects were being pursued by researchers who are personally politically left-leaning but do not press an overt political agenda in their scholarship. PC observed that such scholarly pursuits had been put in an ambivalent position by the growing pressures of the education market, and that a response needs to be conceptualized and acted upon within scholarly circles.

Session 6: Round-up Discussants: Richard Allen (RA), Makarand Paranjape (MP), all participants

MP gave a summing-up of what he felt were some of the key issues arising from the workshop. He started by acknowledging how useful the workshop had been: it brought several members from different parts of the profession and different institutions face to face, which rarely happens. In addition, for the first time concrete realities were discussed, including government policies and their impact on the academy, rather than just abstractions and theories. After listening to the presentations on the XIth and XIIth plans he had felt that there was a great mismatch between policy-makers (the government and its bureaucracy), the stake-holders (the teachers), and the end-users (the students). The result was that ES in India rarely delivered what the market needed or what was ‘good’ for the students. A BA in English, by itself, did not train a person for any specific job. Further, he observed that how the area of ES in India is discussed is very largely dependent on the kind of pre-conceived frame that is assumed. To think of English as an imperialist imposition, an instrument of emancipation, a global lingua franca, an area of social activism or resistance, an Indian or not an Indian language, etc. all bring their particular limitations, and that’s what makes the area worth discussing in forums such as this. He felt that there is a demand for English in India that

54  Gupta and Allen needs to be met, and also an urgent need for promoting and cultivating Indian languages and literatures which shouldn’t be neglected. MP also identified some of the issues which this workshop had failed to address sufficiently, especially the relationship of English and other Indian languages, and the role of translation in Indian ES. RA invited each participant to identify one issue arising from the workshop discussions that needs particular discussion and research. Responses included: the need to address translation, the importance of creating databases for research and pedagogic practices in India, the necessity for greater understanding of student attitudes and expectations, the autonomy of English departments, the need to involve those specializing in Indian languages in such discussions, further exploration of the relationship between schools and HE, and (provocatively) an agenda for banashing English literary studies from Indian HE.

Issues for further discussion Looking back, a set of issues could be seen to preoccupy participants. Literature and literacy: The degree to which, and manner in which, HE-level ES should accommodate language teaching was consistently raised as an issue which calls for further discussion. The emphasis at HE level currently is on literary studies. It was generally felt that large numbers of students of HE ES see improving linguistic competence as a vital element, though not the only element, of their studies. Three scenarios might be useful in prompting further discussion: (a) to teach the English language through literature [this makes practical sense given that at present English departments are preponderantly staffed with literature teachers/researchers]; (b) to re-orient the ES curriculum so as to maintain its integrity while offering a mutually informed but distinctive offering of literary and (primarily applied) linguistics studies [this does entail reconsideration of staffing and resourcing practices]; (c) to have distinct and clearly sign-posted provision for literary studies in English and English language teaching within institutions, perhaps in separate departments [this might mean that literary studies will suffer]. Participants felt it was more or less impossible to separate the situation in HE from the situation in schools. It was strongly felt that school teaching is proving inadequate for the current structure of HE ES. This should be explored further by: (a) research into schooling and the training of teachers etc. to understand how a deficit in language skills occurs and how it might be addressed; (b) considering how deficits might be more systematically addressed in HE. Discussion of such issues seems necessarily linked to discussion of the scenarios above. Anxieties in English literary studies and its public role: By and large the participants were reluctant to have literary studies play a secondary role to language teaching in HE ES, and felt it has a valuable contribution to make. There are personal interests at work here, anxieties about future employment among mainly literary specialists currently working in HE ES, and among those studying for predominantly literature-focused degrees in ES and aiming for academic

Policy, pedagogy, scholarship, market 55 positions. But the anxiety also stems from a conviction of the public value of English literary studies as it has been pursued in Indian HE. It is regarded as a site for cultivating critical thinking and responding to and intervening in social concerns, and there is a significant history of such critical thinking and intervention. The international reach of English means literary studies scholars have been able to do this in a manner which contributes to and is informed by scholarship in other geopolitical contexts. The fact that a regularly narrow view of language studies prevailed in the workshop (seeing it as coeval with ELT) meant that the similar public function that language studies (sociolinguistics and discourse analysis, for instance) can play was not registered. The relative under-development and under-resourcing of language studies in the broader sense in India might, of course, mean that it has in fact been significantly less active in cultivating critical thinking and social intervention. English within the spectrum of Indian languages: The workshop considered a counter thesis, that English remains an imperialist and neo-imperialist imposition. In India as in other geopolitical contexts, English is an elite language which exacerbates socio-economic differences; the emphasis on English has the effect of diluting attention to Indian languages which are more closely connected to Indian everyday lives, traditions and histories, and sense of identity. This thesis should prompt discussion and research considering whether the balance of ES in relation to studies in other Indian languages should change in favour of the latter. Such discussions would need to take account the fact that, for many, English seems necessary as cultural and social capital, and that there is a significant ground-level demand for English competence amongst traditionally dispossessed constituencies. Equally important are two contrasting issues: (a) the relationship of ES to studies in other Indian languages; and (b) the role that translation plays in Indian literary studies in all its languages, and the place of English therein. The issue of translation is, in fact, a distinct and significant one: its place within English Studies – in pedagogy and scholarship – also demands further attention. The student perspective: In the workshop discussions a consistent concern was the need to address student expectations and aspirations within the curriculum and in pedagogic practices. Teachers’ accounts suggested that students have a largely functional approach to ES: they aim for a degree which will improve employment prospects, and competence in the English language. Students were said not to have a strong investment in literary and cultural studies and critical thinking. As noted above, participants in the workshop sought to substantiate their conclusions with evidence based on questionnaires administered in their classes. It was clear to all, however, that more methodologically rigorous evidence of student expectations and aspirations drawing on a wider sample would bring better-graded understanding, for example of student aims and their attitudes to language learning, critical thinking, literary study, etc. This prompted the development of the survey described in Part III of this book. In the context of Indian HE this remains a very small-scale affair but should prove the value of wider research. Using the results of these investigations to drive curriculum

56  Gupta and Allen and programme reform is, however, complex and would need further discussion. There is indubitably a need to be responsive to student aims and ambitions generally; helping students towards a good career in the shifting economic and business environment in India is an important aim. But at the beginning of their studies students may not be fully cognisant of the possibilities that their fields of study present. In this context it is the responsibility of those designing curricula and programmes to provide opportunities for students to reflect on the full long-term possibilities offered by ES. Evidence and documentation: The workshop suggested there is a more general need for properly researched and archived documentation to enable discussion of the future of ES on the basis of firm evidence. In addition to the kind of scaled-up student attitude and expectation survey just mentioned it would be very valuable to have: an ongoing index or bibliographical resource for research projects and scholarly publications relevant to ES with a national scope; an archive of relevant government (central and state) policy discussions and documents; a centralized archive of programme content and pedagogic practices for ES in Indian HE. Such documentation would naturally be useful for any discipline, and models are likely to exist already in other disciplines which could be consulted in creating these. Marketization: Several presentations in the workshop expressed deep reservations about the market-oriented policies that are being imposed on publicly funded HE institutions, or what was called ‘marketization’ in a shorthand manner. Such marketization in education was seen as symptomatic of a larger marketization in social and political organization underway now, and effectively operating upon all areas of social life. In a way, it appeared at times in the workshop that ‘marketization’ is in some danger of becoming an implicitly norm-laden term (negatively loaded) which lacks definition and needs to be more sharply articulated to enable discussion of this view. It was evident that the term is meant to gesture towards the governance of publicly-funded educational institutions as if they are businesses to generate profits (or at least break even), so that the public interest that justifies public funding of education is hampered. This hampering could happen partly by dumbing-down the critical edge and social engagement of research and pedagogy (which may not be profitable and may indeed be resistant on behalf of public interest), partly by generating uneven access and opportunities (so that ultimately those who can afford it can best make use of educational opportunities), and partly by enabling private (corporate) interests to be served by using public investments and under the guise of public interests. More precise information and analysis is needed to examine how and whether this works for public education in India now, and whether and how it works in ES: e.g. by undertaking a few case studies of specific instances of such policies and with rigorous demonstration of their effects. The normative weight that the terms ‘marketization’ and ‘market’ seem to have acquired may be unproductive. Arguably, there is no public interest organization without its market mores, and public interest distribution systems necessarily follow particular market principles.

Policy, pedagogy, scholarship, market 57

Notes  1 In the experience of the organizers, such limitations are again endemic to any discussion event. We asked for a significant commitment of time and a significant engagement, refusing the process whereby a speaker arrives just before their presentation, delivers something prepared, and leaves afterwards.   2 Reports were circulated to allow participants to suggest amendments if they felt misrepresented. Subsequent changes are limited to those required to achieve consistency and match the space available in this book.  3 The Indian economy has been conducted to a certain extent in terms of the Planning Commission of India’s Five-Year Plans since 1951. The XIth Five Year Plan was for the period 2007–2012 and was published in two volumes: Planning Commission, Govt. of India, XIth Five Year Plan 2007–2012, Volume I: Inclusive Growth (Delhi: OUP, 2008) and XIth Five Year Plan 2007–2012, Volume II: Social Sector (Delhi: OUP, 2008). The draft XIIth Five Year Plan is for the period 2012–2017 and can be found at http://planningcommission.gov.in/plans/ planrel/12thplan/welcome.html  4 Undergraduate teaching at Delhi University takes place in 77 colleges spread around the city, which follow the same BA syllabus. The BA and MA English syllabi at Delhi University were revised in the late 1990s after a complex process of negotiations and consultations.  5 The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education (RTE) Act was enacted on 4 August 2009 by the Indian Parliament. A summary and related documents are available from the MHRD website, http:// mhrd.gov.in/rte   6 See Chapter 2 above, ‘Higher Education Policy and English Studies in India’.   7 The National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) published the fourth National Curriculum Framework in 2005 giving guidance on school education programmes. It can be downloaded from http://www.ncert.nic.in/ rightside/links/pdf/framework/english/nf2005.pdf   8 The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), MHRD, launched the National Vocational Education Qualification Framework (NVEQF) in February 2012 for implementation in polytechnics, engineering colleges and other HE institutions. For an overview and related documents see mhrd.gov.in/ nveqf.   9 For a useful account of Dalit aspirations and English see Alok Mukherjee, This Gift of English: English Education and the Formation of Alternative Hegemonies in India (Delhi: Orient Blackswan, 2009), Conclusion. 10 The manner in which the Delhi University administration implemented a semester structuring of the academic year and programme to replace a term structure from 2011 to 2012 was resisted by teachers and students. For discussions, see: Alok Rai, ‘Semester Fever: Is It Curable?’ Kafila 24 November 2010, http://kafila. org/2010/11/24/semester-fever-is-it-curable-alok-rai/; Sunalini Kumar, ‘It’s Here, the Privatisation of Higher Education in India’, Kafila 22 March 2011, http://kafila.org/2011/03/22/its-here-the-privatisation-of-higher-educationin-india/ 11 EFL University, Hyderabad; Aligarh Muslim University; Gauhati University; and H. M. Patel Institute of English Training and Research, Vallabh Vidya Nagar, Gujarat. 12 See Chapter 4 for further discussion of this issue. 13 Gauging the social and economic impact of academic research began to be discussed in the UK around 2008, and measures were firmly put in place by 2010. These measures were worked into the public funding regime for academic research. The latter offers two pathways: funding disbursed through the Research Councils through competitive bidding; and funding allocated to HEIs through a national-level

58  Gupta and Allen research assessment (called the Research Excellence Framework or REF for this exercise in 2013). By 2010 the Research Council funding application forms demanded impact plans, and in 2013 the REF departments submitting documents for research assessment were required to make an ‘impact statement’. The UK is not alone in requiring impact measurements; the systems adopted in the UK by AHRC bore some resemblance to those that had been trialled (to many, unsuccessfully) in Australia for public HEIs. 14 Such as the annual Indian Books: Annual Bibliography, which appeared between 1973 and 1975, and was replaced by BEPI: A Bibliography of English Publications in India: An integrated author-title-subject index to scholarly and significant publications of the year (Delhi: D. K. Trust), appearing between 1977 and 1980. For literary research specifically, K. C. Dutt edited a biannual Indian Literary Index for two years, 1988–1989 (Delhi: Sahitya Akademi). 15 The National Assessment and Accreditation Council, funded by the University Grants Commission, was established in 1994. The current regime of NAAC HEI assessments was initiated in April 2007. Research is considered in a predominantly quantitative way without subject peer assessment.

4 The profession of English Studies 2 Employment, management, and the multilingual context Richard Allen and Suman Gupta The second workshop debating the future of English Studies (ES) was held on 15–16 February 2013 at Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi. The focus here was first on employer and management perspectives, and second on multilingualism, and the role of translation and linguistics in ES. The format of the workshop was as before; sessions focused on themes through a limited number of questions. There were brief presentations but the emphasis was on free-flowing discussion of the session questions. A session-bysession account of discussions is again followed by some general remarks. The participants in this workshop were (in alphabetical order): Thomas Abraham (Hachette India), Shalini Advani (Pathways School), Richard Allen (Open University UK, Chair of the workshop), Mohammad Asaduddin (Jamia Millia), Tista Bagchi (Delhi University), Tapan Basu (Delhi University), Saugata Bhaduri (Jawaharlal Nehru University), Debanjan Chakrabarti (British Council), Subarno Chattarji (Delhi University), Supriya Chaudhuri (Jadavpur University), Anuradha Ghosh (Jamia Millia), Suman Gupta (Open University UK), Anjum Hasan (independent novelist and poet), Ruchi Kaushik (Sri Ram College of Commerce), Mini Krishnan (Oxford University Press), Raman Kumar (EXL Service), Rama Mathew (Central Institute of Education, Delhi University), Rohini Mokashi-Punekar (IIT Gauhati), Rukmini Bhaya Nair (IIT Delhi), Makarand Paranjape (Jawaharlal Nehru University), G. J. V. Prasad (Jawaharlal Nehru University), Mukti Sanyal (Bharati College), Harish Trivedi (Delhi University), Poonam Trivedi (Indraprastha College).

Session-by-session account of discussions Session 1: General debate Session question: ‘The academic rationale of ES’ vs. ‘the instrumental drivers of ES (the economic and developmental rationale)’: Can and do these converge? Discussants: Shalini Advani (SA), Richard Allen (RA), Mohammad Asaduddin (MA), Tapan Basu (TapB), Saugata Bhaduri (SB), Debanjan Chakrabarti (DC), Subarno Chattarji (SubC), Supriya Chaudhuri (SupC), Anuradha Ghosh (AG), Anjum Hasan (AH), Mini Krishnan (MK), Rohini Mokashi-Punekar (RMP), Makarand Paranjape (MP), G. J. V. Prasad (GJV), Mukti Sanyal (MS)

60  Allen and Gupta AH, writer-in-residence at Jamia, made an opening presentation for the workshop from the perspective of a poet and novelist in English. Writing in English within the multilingual context of India, she observed, involves negotiating with questions at two levels: at an individual level, about the influence of the author’s first language (i.e. the vernacular mother tongue) on her English usage; and, at a general level, on whether the English language is appropriate for engaging with multilingual Indian culture. Questions along the latter line usually come with a ‘moral charge’. They presume a false distinction between writers in English and in Indian languages on the basis that the latter are rooted in the Indian context and enable more ‘authentic’ literary representations/experiences. AH maintained that in India creative writing in English, as in any Indian language, is ‘constitutive of the world written about’. The question that needs to be addressed is how the multilingual environment enriches creative writing in all languages, including in English. RA introduced the discussion on the session question. He referred to the literariness of ES, which made it an analytic academic pursuit distinct from a keen reader’s empathetic interest in literature. A top-down instrumentalist agenda has more recently been brought to bear upon HE literary studies in English through education policies and funding practices which enjoined consideration of factors such as the employability (or unemployability) of graduates and the discipline’s putative contribution to economic development. The discussion that followed explored various positions around two received notions about ES in Indian HE. On the one hand, English is popular for instrumentalist reasons, a desire to enhance English language acquisition and proficiency; on the other hand, there are academic rationales foregrounding literary study, presuming English language proficiency so avoiding teaching language skills. SupC observed that the instrumentality of English proficiency has been urged not only from within India but also from without, with global markets in view. She recalled Susan Sontag’s essay ‘The World as India’ (2003)1 and its observations on call-centre workers to characterize that extrinsic push. Under the circumstances, she argued, ES could no longer subscribe to an academic view of English as a language of creativity and criticism, but nor should it ignore the purely instrumental view of English. HE ES has to reflect the multiple dimensions of English usage. SubC felt that the session question touched on anxieties currently felt in ES (and perhaps felt in other subjects in Indian HE as well). There are, he felt, reasonable ideological qualms in the subject community about the purely instrumental view of English in academic circles, along with the powerful top-down government and student push to make HE compliant with such a view. TapB wondered whether HE institutions should be regarded as the appropriate site for rendering students market-worthy – i.e., whether HE ES departments are the appropriate site for nurturing serviceable English language skills. MA spoke of the reality of curriculum reform in his university which involved giving greater attention to English language skills; he reported that it had been successfully implemented by (mainly literature) teachers who had received no additional specific training for that purpose. MS felt that separating ELT from other aspects of ES, and therefore putting ELT outside current English Departments, would be counterproductive

Employment, management, multilingualism 61 for such departments. DC argued that language skills make an input inside as well as outside academia, but noted that one of the reasons why the questions about English were so pressing was because of the demand for English in India and the fact that many wanting to study English were first generation readers/learners. GJV noted that demand for language proficiency has served HE English literary studies well in India in terms of recruitment, and averred that universities are responsible for meeting the undeniable demand for English proficiency. SB noted again that the session question set up a ‘confrontational discourse’, whereas in practice instrumental and academic agendas overlap substantially. ‘English Studies’ seems to be centred on knowledge of the English language, but in fact incorporates a larger domain of knowledge. Relatedly, SA felt that the focus should not so much be on instrumental and academic agendas within HE ES but on what she characterized as ‘English for life’ and ‘English in HE’. The former is imbricated with issues of power and class mobility in India. SA, GJV, and RMP in different ways all made the point that instrumentality has increasingly and systematically been pushed upon all humanities and social science disciplines, and technological disciplines in India and other countries. Several participants (including DC and SupC) were concerned that a heavy emphasis on English language proficiency at all levels, including at HE, has been detrimental to proficiency in other Indian languages – especially mother tongues. MP agreed; in his words, ‘we have created a self-defeating system which privileges English at the expense of Indian languages . . . a society dominated by elite consumers who wish to be catered to only in English’. SG said however that such comments should be understood in the context of evidence that showed 75 per cent of Indians actually described themselves as monolingual, with only 25 per cent professing knowledge of two or more languages.2 Taking a somewhat different position, MK argued that multilingual proficiency – including proficiency in English – is better served if a focus on literature is maintained; currently dominant skills-based or application-centred approaches to ELT had exacerbated deficiencies in language proficiency for both English and other Indian languages. DC disagreed, observing that ELT in India has suffered from an excessive dependence on (literary) text-based resources which has worked against first-generation learners and restricted English to the upper classes that have conventionally cultivated literary interests.

Session 2: Employers and employment Session questions: (a) To what extent do employers, in sectors other than the academic, employ ES graduates? (b) From the employers’ perspective, are ES graduates suitable for such employment?

(continued)

62  Allen and Gupta

(continued) (c) To what extent do employers provide facilities for job-specific training and development? (d) Do employers feel that academic curricula and pedagogy in HE ES should be more responsive to career prospects? If so, how? Discussants: Thomas Abraham (TA), Shalini Advani (SA), Anuradha Ghosh (AG), Suman Gupta (SG), Mini Krishnan (MK), Raman Kumar (RaK), Makarand Paranjape (MP)

TA (Managing Director of Hachette India and formerly CEO of Penguin India), SA (Director of Pathways School), and RaK (EXL Services) led this session with presentations on the relation of ES and employment in the publishing sector, school education and teacher training, and the Business Process Outsourcing (BPO) sector respectively. TA outlined some of the salient features of the publishing sector, drawing upon his experience of managing the Indian divisions of international publishing firms. Publishing houses are businesses; with certain flexibilities profit is the primary driver. English-language publishing firms became a significant sector in India only after the mid-1980s. ES graduates are primarily employed in acquisitions and editing, with a few in marketing. A cursory survey of eight Indian tradepublishing firms (Penguin, Hachette, Random House, Harper, Pan Macmillan, Westland, Aleph, Zubaan) showed that English graduates represent 13 per cent of the total number of staff and 33 per cent of the total staff in editing. That said, copy-editing and proof-reading are often done by contracted persons outside the firms, and English graduates figure significantly here. Thus the typical ES graduate in publishing will have an ‘outsourced’ position. In this context TA had the following provocative thoughts. ES graduates approach editing with unrealistic aspirations, and are (‘uniquely’) lacking in orientation to business. ES had ‘abrogated responsibility for [the development of] professional skills’, with a marked absence of numeracy and sometimes also shaky formal communication skills. These deficiencies have now to be addressed on the job, but English departments may want to look at providing at least a business module (focused on the creative industries) within their course frameworks. More radically ES programmes could offer options teaching skills necessary for employment and broaden the remit of literary studies to such areas as advertising, journalism, etc. Expertise just in literature does not sit well in a business where Word Power Made Easy3 was India’s best-selling non-fiction title and had lasted in the top ten charts for over 20 years. Discussion here focused on the part played by contracted copy-editors and proof-readers and on the background of the kind of staff TA had spoken of: almost entirely, it seemed, from the metropolitan middle class, and graduates of elite institutions (Jadavpur University, Delhi University, etc.). SG also enquired about how this profile compared with that of Hindi-language publishing, of

Employment, management, multilingualism 63 which TA had experience in Penguin India. TA suggested the Hindi market is more fragmented than the English one, but that employment patterns were similar to English-medium publishing. SA spoke about the factors which guide English schoolteacher training and appointments from her experience of working for NCERT, managing schools, and her research into English school textbooks and teachers’ attitudes. English has conventionally been an upper-caste and upper-class preserve and the teaching body has been predominantly female. The focus in English has also been largely on texts rather than on communication. However, things are now changing: students from backgrounds without the cultural capital of English are entering education and expecting to become proficient in English and thereby find employment in the global market. In SA’s definition: ‘Education is a means for young people to learn skills to earn their living and to live with dignity and contribute to making a better world.’ Some of the top skills in question are taught through English courses in schools, such as critical thinking, effective communication, etc. and ES graduates wanting to become teachers must be able to move from literature-centred study towards broader communicative competence. However this may not require change in HE ES programmes since teacher training programmes are a discrete institutional area. AG and MP asked whether the school curriculum in English needed revision or reconsideration in view of ongoing developments. SA replied that the curriculum is adequate in some ways, i.e. to deliver a subject-defined programme; but in the broader sense it does need change to match the reality of the learning process, which is centred on communication and interaction rather than a one-way flow from the teacher to the student. That said, when thinking of ES in terms of ‘competencies required by the market’, we should beware of a narrow understanding of those competencies. MK wondered whether she was correct in thinking that English teachers were often also called upon to deliver ‘value education’ and ‘life skills’ classes, such as those required, for instance, by schools following the CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Examinations)4 curriculum since the mid-2000s. SA confirmed that this was often the case; there is a widespread perception that by dint of their subject-specific interests English teachers are well-equipped to deal with these and other non-standard parts of the curriculum. RaK outlined how the BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) sector is structured in terms of employment, saying that the sector requires specific skills though it is often regarded as a fall-back option for graduates. Employment in the sector may be at the frontline, where call centres are located and workers have direct contact with clients of outsourcing businesses (providing the ‘voice’), or in the back office (which involves technical support, finance, personnel development, etc.). Workers in the former are remunerated more modestly than is often thought, have relatively insecure positions, and risk criticism for ‘poor customer experience’, etc. The back office often gets less investment and consequently the quality of personnel suffers, but the back office offers greater job security. English proficiency is more salient to the frontline than to the back office. ES graduates are generally well equipped by their education to find employment in the sector,

64  Allen and Gupta especially in the frontline where communication is key. The emphasis on literature in HE ES programmes then serves graduates well, since a general cultural awareness of ordinarily Anglophone contexts facilitates direct communication. But firms often seek to move from BPO to BPM (Business Process Management), which involves not just providing an outsourced service as a vendor but forming business partnerships which may involve consulting, IT solutions, etc. In such a move, the back office gains more weight.

Session 3: HE policy and management Session questions: (a) What public interest role does ES have in relation to the Indian polity, social life and social development, from a public policy perspective? (b) What general provision is made at the level of policy to ensure academic independence and maximize public access to HE and academic knowledge? (c) What sorts of policies, if any, are currently implemented or contemplated which may have an effect on specifically ES scholarship and pedagogy? Discussants: Supriya Chaudhuri (SupC) and others

SupC drew on her considerable experience of membership in governmentlevel education policy bodies, and spoke about the national policy environment for Indian HE ES. She cited particularly the Right to Education Act5 which appeared alongside the report of ‘The Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education’ or Yash Pal Committee (2009)6 and the reports of the National Knowledge Commission since 2005 – especially the ‘Report to the Nation 2006–2009’7. These confirmed the right of every child to free and compulsory school education, and made a strong recommendation specifically for teaching English from Class 1 of schools and onwards. However, SupC felt that the implications of these policy documents for pedagogy and curricula in HE for different disciplines, particularly for languages, have not been followed up. In her words, ‘hyperactive’ policy makers were faced by a ‘slowmoving’ academic sector. The situation was exacerbated by the fact that during the 1990s/2000s a significant number of states had discontinued English language teaching at primary levels in state schools. These decisions had been reversed but there was still diminished English proficiency and a shortage of teachers. As a result there have been few significant attempts at developing policies with regard to English teaching at schools since the NCERT’s National Curriculum Framework for English (2005)8 and National Focus Group’s Position Paper on the ‘Teaching of English’ to NCERT (2006)9; and none whatever for English Studies curricula at university level since the recommendations made by

Employment, management, multilingualism 65 the Curriculum Development Committee to the UGC for ‘English and other Western Languages’ (2001).10 However, universities and language teachers have woken up to the need for change in ES curricula at HE, albeit in a context where existing over-arching education policies put a strong emphasis on interdisciplinarity and innovation rather than subjects perceived as single such as English. Much of the remainder of this session was devoted to discussion of the change from a three-year to a four-year undergraduate programme then in progress at Delhi University (DU) and being introduced in its eighty or so undergraduate colleges. This particular and local change was judged to be potentially a pilot for wider implementation of such a system. In essence the system introduced a set of ‘foundation’ courses covering a wide range of subjects which all students were obliged to study mostly in their new first year. In the scheme as a whole the new courses equated to more than a year, however, and specialist study was reduced by just under 15 per cent. The motives behind the change seemed to be primarily two-fold: a response to the changing mix of students entering the university, and a desire that HE students in all subjects should engage with major issues facing India across a range of disciplines. The programme offered three exit points: after two years of successful study leading to a Diploma; after three years to a Bachelors ordinary degree; and after four years to a Bachelors degree with Honours. GJV commented on the prospective innovations, arguing that the need to cater for a new diversity among students should in fact prompt more autonomy and less central control in curriculum setting, thus allowing DU’s colleges to target particular constituencies of students. He felt that because of the policy vacuum that SupC had described, restructuring of programmes was being implemented too hastily within institutions – these appear responsive to social forces but divorced from the contents and methods of academic disciplines themselves. The weakness in English competence suggested more bilingual teaching would occur but GJV wondered what this would mean in practice in English Studies. MP agreed that bilingualism needed to be defined, but said that in a broader sense he felt that something one might call bilingualism was increasingly to be found ‘on the ground’ with Hindi as the other language – indeed often the dominant language, because constitutionally the official language. English nevertheless had a ‘special role’ in the collaboration between languages. For himself MP said he could see the change was an attempt at responding to a changing environment and accommodating to the ‘new world’. The report of the discussion here is briefer than elsewhere as some participants felt that they did not wish now to be included in the account of the workshop.

Postscript to this discussion The Four Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP) was introduced in the semester after the workshop but was abandoned within a year, after the development of an English Foundation course but before students had moved from the new Year 1 to specialist English study. The authors of this chapter are convinced that the underlying rationale and brief experience of FYUP at DU continues,

66  Allen and Gupta however, to have a wider relevance and they therefore offer some observations on its broad contours. The comments here draw on a further independent investigation in April 2014, while FYUP was in presentation, to gauge the effects of the change on pedagogy and the profession of English Studies.11 This involved in-depth interviews with persons closely associated with planning and implementing the change, the circulation of questionnaires to teachers of English in and outside DU, and consultation of policy, curricular and teaching material and other documents in the public domain. The speed with which the change was introduced – roughly a year elapsed between first public proposal in 2013 and implementation – is striking, particularly against the background of inertia referred to in the workshop. The authors were unable to find any publicly available detailed policy document setting out the underpinning rationale for the FYUP, and it seems government backing for the scheme was already weakening with the Human Resource Development minister concerned moving to a new portfolio before the project was fully underway. Interestingly, overall a four-year programme seemed designed to align DU structures with US HE structures, perhaps to make it easier for DU qualifications to be understood and recognized there. In other ways too, the change seemed to signal a shift towards a US rather than a UK model. Giving students the option of a formal diploma qualification after two years of relatively general education, echoing the US Community College model, was seen as valuable for those from less advantaged backgrounds. On that same model the FYUP allowed for increased participation rates in HE and responded to the often cited claim by Indian industrialists and entrepreneurs that Indian graduates are unemployable and inadequately skilled. Separately, the aim was to increase what might be described as the civic awareness of students; in theory the ‘foundation’ year could be a generalist intervention between the increasing specialism of school work and the specialism of degree work. Those involved in English Studies saw a number of possibilities in the FYUP, making it more or less desirable depending on their ideological interest: that the subject would come to be perceived as attractive because it produced graduates with the language skills required for employment; that a cadre of English Studies graduates would be created who are less bound by subject specialism, especially with less investment in literary critical interests; that those emerging with university degrees at lower than Honours level would only have received a sub-degree level of education with neither significant academic nor particular applied benefits; and that pressure of workload and compression of time for subject specialism would mean that those emerging with Honours degrees would also suffer from inadequate academic development. The decision to roll back the FYUP and revert to a three-year structure means that none of these possibilities can be confirmed. At the time of the further investigation, supporters mostly in the university management admired the speed of change and felt teething problems could be overcome. Critics argued that the speed of implementation meant paucities in infrastructural development for delivery of the programme. Doubts too remained throughout about the processes by which the policy driving FYUP

Employment, management, multilingualism 67 had been determined and the supporting curricular and teaching materials prepared, and about the evidence and consultation that underpinned the change. The focus was more or less exclusively on the new first year, without real consideration of how it would integrate into the broader curriculum over four years. The University Grants Commission (UGC) and the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) under the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, however, seemingly sanctioned the implementation of the change. It was much discussed in the news media. This eventually led to the opposition (at the time) Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to promise in its manifesto of 2014 to reverse the change – possibly the first time in Indian political history that programme change in a single HE institution featured in a party manifesto for national general elections. After BJP won the election in May 2014 the UGC and MHRD under the new dispensation invoked hitherto rather neglected statutory norms for length of study and pressured DU into withdrawing FYUP in favour of the earlier three-year programme. As the change was rapidly introduced so it was also rapidly abandoned; policy makers retreated to lick their wounds; those teachers who had attempted on the ground to make the new structure coherent seemed only to have wasted a good deal of time and effort. A newspaper feature observed at the time that both the implementation of FYUP in DU and the manner in which it was withdrawn ‘reflected an ad-hoc, callous and arbitrary approach toward higher education in India and showed the degree of derision with which we treat our universities and their decisions’.12

Session 4: Multilingualism and translation Session questions: (a) Is the popularity of ES and the interests/aspirations pinned on the English language proving detrimental to the study of other Indian languages and literatures? (b) What sorts of political and ideological subscriptions apply in contemplating the relation of English to other Indian languages, and are they addressed in ES pedagogy? (c) To what extent does translation figure in ES and the study of other Indian languages, and should it become more centred? Discussants: Mohammad Asaduddin (MA), Saugata Bhaduri (SB), Subarno Chattarji (SubC), Supriya Chaudhuri (SupC), Anuradha Ghosh (AG), Suman Gupta (SG), Anjum Hasan (AH), Ruchi Kaushik (RK), Mini Krishnan (MK), Rama Matthew (RM), Rohini Mokashi-Punekar (RMP), Makarand Paranjape (MP), Mukti Sanyal (MS), Harish Trivedi (HT), Poonam Trivedi (PT)

MK began the session by saying she felt that for various reasons there was a threat to the study of Indian languages and literatures other than English. Looking

68  Allen and Gupta back, in the early decades after Independence a casual and ‘comfortable bilingualism’ largely prevailed, but proficiency in all languages suffered particularly after the 1980s. MK associated this with moves to take language instruction away from literary studies (see the point she made in Session 1), for example in the CBSEELT project 1989–1997 set up in collaboration with the British Council (and funded from the UK).13 Bilingualism, she felt, could be brought back by more literary study, bringing students to texts in Indian languages and, particularly, translations into English. To MK a growth of regionalism and chauvinism and an increasing emphasis on identity-based studies were important in understanding the debates about English and other Indian languages in education. Who produces texts and how texts travel need to be more explicitly registered than at present – especially across languages and regions. MK felt that translated texts are finding more space in HE ES but greater awareness of translation needs to be involved to avoid translations being treated as ‘original’ texts. The social complexities and ideological negotiations involved in translating, especially into English, render such awareness particularly desirable. For example, the interest in questions of English and other languages is now driven more by caste issues rather than language group issues. As an editor of Oxford University Press MK has recently overseen the production of The Oxford English Anthology of Tamil Dalit Writing14; Dalit ideologues (such as, recently, Kancha Ilaiyah and Chandra Bhan Prasad) have chosen English as the language of opportunity and emancipation rather than major Indian vernaculars. Though the English language has been used by class and caste elites in India as a mark of their superiority, it still offered more scope for articulating political and economic aspirations among the disenfranchised and dispossessed than most major Indian languages. MS and RM challenged MK’s representation of the CBSE-ELT and British Council project with the British Council. In their view, the CBSE-ELT project has essentially shifted the emphasis from teaching language through literature toward teaching communication. Only a limited number of students, of privileged backgrounds, had been able to capitalize on the former; the shift towards centring communication was to embrace the greater majority who had previously been regarded as ‘low achievers’. RMP and MP wondered whether the trend for translation to be into English and not from one Indian language to another means that Indian literature is becoming more ‘monotonal’. If so, the challenge to translators appears to be to ‘make language more disparate’. In his presentation, MA argued both for centring translation in ES and for the study of Indian literatures in other languages at HE level, with the conviction that ‘translation builds solidarities’. It seemed to him unarguable that Indian vernaculars have been suffering compared to English. In Jamia Millia more students are recruited to the English than to the Hindi department because they correctly estimate that their career prospects are enhanced with English, and when choosing options those studying English opted for subjects like Social Work or Mass Communications rather than another language. English indeed seems to subsume student and public interests to a disproportionate degree. Academic approaches in ES are neglectful of Indian vernaculars; postcolonial studies has been imported

Employment, management, multilingualism 69 into India from Anglophone contexts. Historically translations from European languages have been a continuous presence in ES, but the issue of translation is generally obscured. Similarly there is low awareness of the way translations are already often playing a powerful mediatory and inclusionary and connective role in ES (and indeed in the study of literatures in other Indian languages). For MA the way forward for HE ES in India is to foreground the study of translations qua translations, in order to realize the full potential of Indian multilingualism through conscious engagement with translated texts as such. SB observed that translation had worked as a ‘filtration process’ in the development of Indian literature as a corpus of texts. SG continued the point, wondering whether translation should perhaps be seen as not merely offering mediation and solidarity-building but as a mode of gate-keeping. Translation involves a politics of selection. Popular cultural texts of various sorts, for instance, are seldom translated, while translations of canonical and ‘highbrow’ texts are disproportionately dominant. What is represented in translations from an Indian language is therefore a skewed picture of the immense complexity of textual productions in that language. Arguably, translation then represents the translation of the value system associated with literariness, and the domination of an elite, rather than the literature in a language. In his presentation HT took as a given the value of studying texts in Indian languages. If there is a great demand for English from students at present it reflects the academic establishment’s success in selling them a ‘false dream’ which serves the vested interests of the establishment. ‘We’ in ES are in the embrace of this false consciousness and hence tend to confuse the discipline with a liberal enterprise. In fact English and the study thereof continues to be instrumentalized for imperialist agendas, as it had been when introduced in India – albeit now at the behest of the USA rather than the UK. He challenged MK’s view of the use of English by Dalit ideologues, saying this showed allegiance to the same vested interests as much as a means of empowerment. The ideologues ‘we’ choose to listen to are also determined by ‘our’ vested interests. In fact there are many Dalit ideologues (such as Mayawati, leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party, and former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh) who had expressed no desire for English proficiency on behalf of Dalits. The real question so far as multilingualism and translation are concerned is: ‘Are we disabling a majority of our population by insisting that they learn English?’ In leading up to his presentation, MP said it was important to recognize that a resistance towards and a desire for knowledge of English had appeared in India with its institutionalization, and ES has remained at that nexus. Sadly the cultivation of bilingualism, which used to enrich Indian vernaculars, has suffered in the interim. Problems face those wanting to use translations in their teaching. Thus, it is often difficult to obtain sufficient numbers of original and translated texts to be used in a classroom, and translated texts often seem to appear as simply reading texts – without adequate introductions, annotations, etc. – which obscures the process and performance of translation. Different translations of the same original often initially confuse students, and there is confusion when the

70  Allen and Gupta translated version is simply significantly different from the original version. SB and SG responded to question the notion, which they felt underpinned MP’s comments, that the original text is more authentic and stable (i.e. is definitive) as compared to a translation. Texts, they felt, could be regarded as implicitly fluid in their productions, circulations and receptions, and arguably variant manuscript forms, different printed editions, divergent readings, adaptations, abridgements, inter- and intralingual translations, etc. should all be regarded as within the scope of textual fluidity and contextualizations, and be approached and valued as such. Reflecting on this and previous sessions PT said that in her view ES continues to have disciplinary and pedagogic integrity and serves an intellectual function in India. In some ways it has opened up new directions of critical engagement for the humanities in India, and in her experience, Hindi literary criticism has often emulated critical strategies from English literary studies. It was obvious that languages mix and influence each other, especially in India. It is desirable that bilingualism is actively cultivated, and the important issue is not simply being able to use languages minimally but to be able to do so creatively. In a similar way and concluding the session SubC said he felt the session had demonstrated that talking about English in India often appears to be talking with a particular ‘ideological charge’. The danger is that, tacitly, only English is seen to have a history and a teleology in India; other Indian languages are somehow outside ideology. In fact social and ideological frictions and power-play have been historically embedded in all Indian languages, and continue to work in and through these languages now.

Session 5: Language and inguistics Session questions: (a) What is the relationship between ELT and scholarship/pedagogy in linguistics? (b) What directions of scholarship and research with an Indian focus are currently being pursued in linguistics, and do these respond to changing social circumstances? (c) In what ways could the study of linguistics contribute to a student’s career prospects? Discussants: Tista Bagchi (TisB), Anuradha Ghosh (AG), Mini Krishnan (MK), Rama Matthew (RM), Rukmini Bhaya Nair (RBN)

In her opening presentation RM was concerned with the contexts in which the English language is taught and learned, and especially with the variety of English in question (‘whose English?’). She likened the situation within India, and within Indian academia, to that described in Braj Kachru’s three-concentriccircles model of World Englishes.15 Levels of English proficiency and varieties

Employment, management, multilingualism 71 of English usage within India seem to fall into a similar pattern of concentric circles – but along class lines, with the elites at the inner and the marginalized at the outer circles. (In response to a question later RM said that in her judgement around 60–70 per cent of students in Delhi University colleges were competent in English to a basic level.) ELT programmes therefore need a social agenda, which is not simply about enabling communication skills but doing so with a view to empowering those at the outer circles. The fact that a few have achieved strong abilities in English tends to camouflage the needs of the mass of marginalized learners. The key note should be ‘English for our own students’. An empowerment agenda might be facilitated by a more inclusive approach to varieties of English; for the ELT programmes she has planned and worked with, RM had largely sought a mediatory position between enabling communicative comfort appropriate to the context (encouraging the distinctiveness of Indian English usage) and, at the same time, enabling communicative efficacy with a wide scope (focusing on strategies for effective and clear communication irrespective of variety of usage). ELT researchers and pedagogues would undoubtedly benefit from greater engagement with sociolinguistics. Here as elsewhere there was a need to teach the teachers and develop better pedagogy in language teaching. RBN located her comments within a general survey of the field of linguistics. Conventionally linguistics had been predominantly attentive to grammar, and had later moved towards the study of discourse. Reflecting on RM’s observations on ELT, RBN suggested that ELT should follow a contrary pathway to those found in linguistics. Language teaching should begin by focusing on usage and disregarding the entanglement of grammar, then it should attend to the communicative context, and focus on grammar last. Language teaching and learning of this kind should thus be distinguished from pedagogy in linguistics which she characterized as enabling metalinguistic analysis (using language to talk about language). Linguistics research, accordingly, is usually not focused on the process of language acquisition and the honing of skills, but on the ways in which language is already in use – on the existing field of language usage. RBN outlined some of her projects to exemplify this, particularly a project on describing and analysing the creative use of English in everyday interlocution and through electronic interfaces by students in her institution (IIT Delhi). Such creativity in English usage is a marker of someone confident in communication rather than someone aspiring to language proficiency. Research such as this potentially expands the range of questions that those concerned with developing ES and ELT curricula need to consider. RBN then touched on some of the complex issues which bear upon English teaching in India, and which are of interest to sociolinguists: social and political attitudes to English, the problem of literacy, the infrastructural challenges for language education. AG and MK wondered about the possibility of introducing some of the reflexive thinking of linguistic research (on creativity, in sociolinguistics) into ELT teachertraining programmes. RBN felt that this would depend not merely on disciplinary thrusts and needs, but also on the institutional structures for teacher training. RM felt that it was indeed desirable to bring such reflexive thinking about language

72  Allen and Gupta within the structures of ELT teacher-training. Trained ELT instructors usually develop strong cognitive abilities, but there would be value in making space for sharpening analytical and reflexive thinking. TisB pursued the possibilities for closer relation between ELT and linguistics, saying that some mechanism would be desirable whereby the salient ideas of language structure, morphology, social contexts, etc. could enter language teaching in a way that makes sense to teachers. The problem was that in her view linguistics has a considerably broader remit, to do with studying the general principles of various facets of language. It has developed from disciplinary backgrounds such as traditional textual philology, anthropology, cognitive psychology, and technology (particularly logic and information science). This is signalled by the way linguistics courses and programmes in Indian HE are located institutionally in a wide range of schools and faculties. Linguistics therefore embraces a considerable sphere of intellectual engagement and scholarship. Linking it simplistically to language teaching is perhaps as problematic as linking English Literature to language teaching. With a strong push towards skills-training and vocational preparation in HE, linguistics departments in India have been asked to contribute to ELT as have English literature departments; but linguistics should, no more than English literature, be regarded as a ‘service discipline for language teachers’. The study of linguistics and the theory and practice of ELT are distinct fields; they may sometimes looks at common material but each has its own approach. That said, there are possibilities for crossovers. Having a general sense of how languages work and what principles are relevant to them could help a student become more linguistically aware and proficient. Similarly, ELT can provide sources (for example, errors in usage, communicative performances) for researchers in linguistics.

General remarks Again the authors of these reports of the workshop have afterwards reflected on the issues raised and identified a number of themes which they see as significant. Connections: Some of the themes which appeared in the first workshop continued to be debated in the second. However, these debates were not repetitive; in some respects the debates were deeper and more nuanced. The following are particularly noteworthy. First, instead of viewing literacy and literature loosely as mutually obstructive drivers in HE ES, or of presenting academic investment in language and linguistics as vaguely coterminous with teaching languages (especially ELT), a clearer understanding of the constitutions of literary and of linguistic study seemed to emerge. The concern with literacy and ELT came to seem distinct from, and yet related to, teaching and learning in literature and linguistics. Second, the desire expressed in the first workshop for greater engagement with the place of ES apropos other Indian languages, and for engagement with the role of translations in the discipline, was pursued in this workshop. Unsurprisingly, divergent views in this regard were expressed, consistent with the politics of language in India. It also seemed that translations are the repository of somewhat idealistic

Employment, management, multilingualism 73 expectations, in terms of: expecting solidarities to inevitably emerge from the study of translations; hoping that translations could concretize a national canon; seeking to harness textual fluidities by presuming definite directions from source to target languages. Generally, translations were seen as occluding divisions and problems rather than as constructing (positively or negatively) distinct sorts of divisions and problems. Third, there was further clarification of the education policy and institutional environment within which the current position of HE ES in India, and the anxieties/aspirations it accommodates, could be understood. The role played by government initiative and university management was more sharply focused in engaging with ES here. ‘Vocational’ and ‘market’: The intrusion of economic, business and instrumental drivers into HE was a topic of the first workshop. Whereas the predominant attitude there was of resistance, the foregrounding of employer and management perspectives in this workshop encouraged a different view. So far as vocationalism is concerned this might be summarized as follows. A focus on imparting vocational skills conflicts with the pursuit of higher or more specialist knowledge in different areas, but the provision of such instruction serves an immediate and necessary social good (enhancing employment prospects for more candidates, breaking down class divisions, equalizing society, improving the lot of the next generation of workers, etc.). At times ES seemed dichotomous here: the study of English literature and linguistics are specialist academic areas of ES whereas ELT is necessarily intent on imparting vocational skills; learning to communicate effectively in English enhances employment prospects and this has a more pressing social purpose than does literary or linguistic study. At times these dichotomies seemed false. It was clear at the workshop that concern for students’ interest does leads to calls for reform in the direction of what is described as greater vocationalism in HE, and in ES particularly. The demand for reform is grounded predominantly on a perception of social inequities and a desire to redress them in some measurable and ends-oriented fashion. Reflection on vocationalism rather than rejection seems appropriate. Several issues remain to be explored here. First, it seems to be taken as a foregone conclusion that a dominant pursuit of specialist knowledge in ES has to date led to a deficit in vocational skills, and that greater direct investment in skills-training will redress that situation. At present however the evidence for both sides of that statement is impressionistic and uncertain, and it seems at least as likely that ‘vocational skills’ may overlap with what are regarded as traditional ‘academic skills’. Second, the words ‘English’ and ‘language’ are associated in a commonsense way with ES, so those working in ES are expected or assumed to have a special responsibility for the vocational task of ELT and skills-training in communication. The conclusion from the workshops was that this way of thinking was most likely flawed. An HE English literature teacher can make a pragmatic investment in developing the skills of teaching the English language, but so could an HE sociology or physics teacher who is accustomed to teaching/learning/ researching in English. English language proficiency is particularly helpful in ES, but it is equally helpful in academic pursuits in sociology, history or the sciences.

74  Allen and Gupta The special relationship posited between ES and ELT calls for more thinking within a wider frame. Third, is there a relation between vocationalism and marketization, or is the rise of the two phenomena a coincidence? Students intent on vocational study want skills they can sell in the employment market, and a university may see its economic success as dependent on being able to sell the development of those skills better than others in the market, but is this linkage superficial? The role of academics (HE teachers and researchers): ‘Market’ and business ideologies are perhaps particularly important in constructing the role of academics. Especially in the session on policy making and management, the university was seen very much in corporate terms. Teachers and researchers should be reactive to corporately expressed aims, responding (compliantly) to the proactive demands of students, employers and government. From this corporate view, academics were variously placed as agents for perpetuating inequities, as obstructive in relation to policy initiatives, as removed from social realities (stuck in ‘ivory towers’, elitist, impractical), as conservative and self-serving, and so on. It was evident that these negative characterizations of academics had diminished their presence and voice in policy making and management. Against such stereotypes it could be urged that critical thinking about social concerns is a vital part of academic work, often against the grain of establishment agendas. Further, academic work is by its nature not bound to institutions or other enclosed borders (such as state borders), and seeks to adhere to principles of investigative integrity, rationality and even-handedness which cross every sort of boundary. To enjoin a predominantly reactive role to academics in HE policy making, management and governance is fraught with dangers – it is arguable that they are ‘principal stakeholders’ in HE and should be consulted and enabled as such. This also has a bearing on the important principles of academic autonomy and academic freedom. Challenges to slow moving change: A speaker at the workshop referred to a contrast between the rapid development of ideas about the social function of the university at governmental level and the relative apathy in academia. There has been change in ES, but the workshop considered possibilities for more radical measures. Two sessions particularly should prompt further thought. (1) The session on translation was especially productive in discussing how texts from Indian languages in translation figure in ES, exploring possibilities for not merely expanding the range of texts covered but more importantly for teaching translation as translation and with questions about social stratifications (such as caste and class) and dynamics in view. (2) The session on linguistics initiated a discussion in two areas: first, the relation of ELT (and indeed literary analysis) to sociolinguistics; and second, the possibility of teaching and learning which uses rather than rejects as incorrect creative impulses found in students’ exchanges and cultures. (The question as to whether and how creative writing might figure in HE ES in India was raised in the workshop but not discussed in a sustained fashion.) Inconvenient questions: In some ways, the focus on ES in this workshop could be regarded as a case study which throws light on matters of broader import for HE and education in India. In the first workshop the division of responsibility regarding English language teaching between schools and universities was

Employment, management, multilingualism 75 an issue – it was argued that universities were having to make up for failures in schooling; in this workshop it appeared to be readily accepted that the responsibility for language teaching does rest squarely with universities (and school education is a separate matter that universities shouldn’t concern themselves with). Unexplored here are questions of what is appropriate at different levels of education and the notion that institutional spaces are or should be divided according to level of teaching/learning, between lower/middle/higher, and sometimes also (though this distinction has been substantially erased of late) between vocational (or technical or applied) and academic (or scholarly). If all levels and subjects are to be addressed within the same (HE) institutional space (say, a university), to what extent should they be addressed in separate programmes of study, and to what extent in the same programmes – and what is the appropriate balance between the levels if in the same programme, and why? At the bottom of such questions is that old question, ‘What is a university?’ Clearly, the questions that arise with regard to ES are pressing for most departments and faculties in universities now. The situation calls for reconceptualizing education sector-wide in terms of functions and definitions, including taking such fundamental steps as defining ‘higher education’ and defining ‘the university’.16 The prevailing modus operandi for education policy making and policy implementation (across the sector and within institutions) works effectively by circumventing foundational questions of that sort, focusing instead on claimed socio-economic imperatives and so-called ‘stakeholder’ demands. These workshops suggest that consideration of the case of HE ES provides a pertinent vantage point for addressing such foundational questions.

Notes  1 Susan Sontag, ‘The World as India – Translation as a Passport Within the Community of Literature’, Times Literary Supplement 5228, 13 June 2003.  2 Census India 2001, ‘Table on Population by Bilingualism, Trilingualism, Age and Sex’, http://censusindia.gov.in/Tables_Published/C-Series/C-Series_link/ DDWC-000018.pdf. By comparison, in UK, the least multilingual culture in Europe, 62 per cent of UK residents described themselves as monolingual according to an EC Eurobarometer report of 2006 (European Commission (2006), Europeans and their Languages [Eurobarometer Report], http://ec.europa.eu/ public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_243_en.pdf).  3 Norman Lewis, Word Power Made Easy (first edition published by Simon and Schuster in New York, 1971).  4 National-level CBSE is administered at grades 10th and 12th by the Board of Education. The other body administering such national-level examinations is the Council for the Indian School Certificate Examinations: for grade 10th the examinations are called Indian Certificate of Secondary Examination (ICSE) and for grade 12th the Indian School Certificate (ISC) Examinations. The CBSE has produced Values Education: A handbook for teachers (Delhi, 2012) – downloadable at http://cbseacademic.in/web_material/ValueEdu/ Value%20Education%20Kits. pdf – which gives a reasonable sense of what is involved.  5 The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act or Right to Education (RTE) Act were enacted on 4 August 2009 by the Indian Parliament.

76  Allen and Gupta A summary and related documents are available from the MHRD website, http://mhrd.gov.in/rte  6 This can be downloaded from: http://mhrd.gov.in/report-committee-adviserenovation-and-rejuvenation-higher-education-prof-yashpal-committee-report   7 Available at: www.teindia.nic.in/Files/Reports/CCR/NKC/nkcreport09.pdf   8 Available at: http://www.ncert.nic.in/rightside/links/pdf/framework/english/ nf2005.pdf   9 Available at: http://www.ncert.nic.in/new_ncert/ncert/rightside/links/pdf/focus_ group/english.pdf 10 Available at: http://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/modelcurriculum/western.pdf 11 Further details of and documents arising from this investigation are available at: http://www.open.ac.uk/arts/research/ind-uk-es/documents 12 Prabhash Ranjan, ‘A Step Back for Education’, The Hindu 28 June 2014: http:// www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/a-step-back-for-education/article6155876.ece 13 The final report of this appeared as: CBSE-ELT Curriculum Implementation Study (Hyderabad: Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages, 1997). It was discussed in S. K. Gangal, ‘Currents of Change in CBSE Affiliated Schools: A Background Note’, R. K. Agnihotri and A. L. Khanna eds. (1995). English Language Teaching in India : Issues and Innovations (Delhi: Sage, 1995). 14 Ravikumar and R. Azhagarasan eds. The Oxford English Anthology of Tamil Dalit Writing (Delhi: Oxford University Press India, 2012). 15 First proposed in Braj B. Kachru (1985b). ‘Standards, Codification, and Sociolinguistic Realism’, in Randoph Quirk and H. G. Widdowson eds. English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the British Council, 1985), pp. 11–30. 16 We were unable to find a substantive definition for either from, for instance, UGC documents. The Yash Pal Committee report of 2009, mentioned in Session 3, begins with a section on ‘The Idea of the University’ (see note 10: Yash Pal Committee Report, pp. 9–11); no definition is offered, but the principle of the autonomy of universities is maintained and ‘the university’ is conceived in largerthan-institutional terms.

Part III

Students

This page intentionally left blank

5 From country to institution Framing statistics and a student survey Suman Gupta, Milena Katsarska, and Donka Keskinova

This Part presents the results of a survey of undergraduate students’ experiences and expectations of English courses/programmes in universities in Delhi conducted from November 2012 to February 2013. The detailed analysis of those results is taken up in the next chapter; this chapter discusses the context of the survey and the results. Contextual framing offers an opportunity to locate English Studies (ES) in Indian higher education (HE) generally in a more numerate fashion than thus far in this book. The general perspective is, however, delimited by the eventual aim of analysing the survey. The survey is indicative of a limited period (roughly 2010–2013), and has primarily a synchronous relevance since no comparable data from earlier or later periods is currently available. Accordingly, the data from larger framing contexts cited below characterizes the broad features of this period, and data clarifying trends across a prolonged period is not detailed. This chapter has three sections. The first and longest brings together existing information that is relevant for contextualizing the survey at three levels: the all-India level, the Delhi region level (since the survey is confined to Delhi HE institutions), and the institutional level of Delhi University (although the survey captures other institutions in Delhi, a focus on this institution is useful for reasons which become apparent below). These three levels naturally contextualize each other. How typical or atypical the situation in Delhi relative to the all-India situation is can be gauged to some degree by bearing in mind indicators at the national level; and how significant the place of Delhi University is can be grasped by keeping the situation for the Delhi region in view. The material relevant to those levels is laid out in four subsections: universities and university-level institutions, student demographics, broad subject areas, and English as a subject area. These provide reasonably sound frames for assessing how indicative this survey is generally and how indicative responses to some of the specific survey questions are, especially those addressed to demographics. Such framing would be more robust if it had been possible to compare this survey with others of similar depth and thrust from other regions in India, or indeed other subject areas. Unfortunately we have been unable to find such comparable surveys; and, insofar as we are aware, this is the only survey of its kind for a specific subject area or region relevant to Indian HE that is currently available. In the second section of this chapter the planning and rationale of the survey questionnaire is outlined, and the process of administering it detailed. The third section concerns the statistical processing of the returns.

80  Gupta, Katsarska, and Keskinova

Framing material Universities and university-level institutions In 2010–11 there were 634 universities and university level institutions in India, with 16,974,883 (nearly 17 million) students enrolled at different levels of study, of which 14,616,473 (around 14.6 million) were undergraduates. Such institutions are divided into several categories by the University Grants Commission (UGC), the apex government organization for HE: central universities (funded and administered through the central government), state universities (funded and administered through state governments), deemed universities (which are autonomous and receive some government funding and are often predominantly self-funding), private universities (which do not receive government funding but are recognized, but are not allowed to have affiliated colleges), institutes of national importance and other university level institutions (usually devoted to applied academic areas such as engineering, medicine, business and agriculture, which often receive significant government funding). The distribution of these institutions according to category is represented in Figure 5.1; the distribution of university and university-level institutions among the different states of India appears in Figure 5.2. Institutes of National Importance and Other University Level Institutions 65 (10%) Central Universities 43 (7%) Deemed Universities 129 (20%)

Private Universities 100 (16%) State Universities 297 (47%)

Figure 5.1 Type-wise distribution of degree-awarding universities/universitylevel institutions, December 2011. Source: UGC 2012.

From country to institution 81 59

60

Number

50 46 40

36

30

28

25

21

20 10

48

44

42

58

22

15

18

19

11 12

10 3

26

19

2

9 3

3 4

19

17 5

3

3 4

Andhra Pradesh Arunachal Pradesh Assam Bihar Chattisgarh Delhi Goa Gujarat Haryana Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir Jharkhand Karnataka Kerala Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra Manipur Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Odisha Punjab Rajasthan Sikkim Tamil Nadu Tripura Uttar Pradesh Uttarakhand West Bengal Chandigarh Puducherry

0

States / UT’s

Figure 5.2 State-wise universities and university-level institutions in the country, December 2011. Source: UGC 2012.

Delhi’s share of such institutions (25, around 3.94%) is significant in view of its geographical spread and population. Of these: four are central universities (Delhi University, Jamia Millia Islamia, Jawaharlal Nehru University [post-graduate], Indira Gandhi National Open University [distance learning]); five state universities (Bharat Ratna Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, Delhi Technological University, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, National Law University); twelve deemed universities; three institutes (Indian Institute of Mass Communication, Indian Institute of Technology, National Institute of Technology); one international university (South Asian University, funded by SAARC governments). These are within the administratively defined Union Territory of Delhi; if the broader administrative unit of the National Capital Region (NCR) is included – which includes some adjoining areas from neighbouring states – then several private universities would be added to the above. These university or university-level institutions are of different orders of complexity. To give a brief indication of orders of complexity, two models of general HE institutions (offering all subjects at all levels), Jamia Millia and Delhi University – both central universities – could be briefly considered together. Jamia Millia has a structure of Faculties/Schools with Departments under each, and research centres, delivering all levels of degrees from Bachelors to Doctorates, mostly within an integral campus site. In 2011 there were around 15,000 students of which

82  Gupta, Katsarska, and Keskinova over 10,000 were undergraduates. Delhi University has two campus locations, North and South, which host a centralized structure of Faculties/Schools/ Institutes with Departments and research centres – these are principally devoted to delivering programmes at post-graduate levels (Masters to Doctorates). The undergraduate programmes (Bachelors) are delivered predominantly through 81 colleges (77 if morning and evening colleges of the same premises are counted as one), some clustered in the North Campus and the rest distributed around the Delhi region. The content of undergraduate programmes is centrally determined and the assessment is predominantly centrally administered. Otherwise, however, the colleges are relatively autonomously administered, and vary significantly according to subjects offered, histories, infrastructures, constituencies, and so on. In 2011–12, this relatively complex institution accommodated 488,135 students altogether, including 167,288 in colleges (mostly undergraduates), and 17,380 students (mostly post-graduates) in the university departments (DU 89th Annual Report). Delhi University’s School of Open Learning also offers programmes in distance learning mode and accounted for 288,933 students – but this survey is confined to regular undergraduate students, so data about students in this School of Open Leaning and in the Indira Gandhi National Open University (with around 3.5 million students in 2011) are not considered here.

Student demographics In India, statistical data for peoples at various territorial levels – from regions (such as urban/rural, states) to occupational sectors (such as employment) to institutions (such as educational or professional) – are disposed in terms of several standard indicators, by: age, gender, category, and socio-economic demarcations (such as income or consumption). By the Census 2011 figures, India had a total population of 1.2102 billion, of which 586.5 million were female. Around 31.2% of the population was urban, and 74.04% was literate (82.14% among males, 65.46% females). Census data tracked two main categories of disadvantaged groups: Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). By 2011 figures, these constituted about 16.6% and 8.6% respectively of the total population. Another category of disadvantaged constituencies is denoted as Other Backward Classes (OBC), though not tracked in the 2011 Census. By the Government of India’s reservation policy, public institutions reserve 15% of places for SC, 7.5% for ST, and 27% for OBC; and according to a Supreme Court ruling overall reservations should not exceed 50% (there are variations in states). As regards class, statistics are more robustly collected in terms of consumption or expenditure (MPCE or Monthly Per Capita Expenditure) by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO). Indicatively, Table 5.1 gives a reasonable sense of distribution of households and populations in rural and urban areas as proportions of 1000 according to MPCE for 2004–5. Though the ranges of expenditure in money terms are now undoubtedly altered by inflation, currency devaluation and class mobility, these figures give a sense of distribution (and a vivid sense of the difference between urban and rural) which is pertinent to thinking about earnings.

From country to institution 83 Table 5.1  Per thousand distribution of households and population by Monthly Per Capita Expenditure (MPCE) class in India, 2004–2005 Rural

Urban

MPCE class (Rs.)

Households

Population

MPCE class (Rs.)

Households

Population

000–235 235–270 270–320 320–365 365–410 410–455 455–510 510–580 580–690 690–890 890–1155 >1155 All classes

29 30 71 90 94 92 106 117 127 119 65 60 1000

34 38 88 105 106 100 108 113 116 101 52 40 1000

000–335 335–395 395–485 485–580 580–675 675–790 790–930 980–1100 1100–1380 1380–1880 1880–2540 >2540

33 32 73 93 97 93 99 97 113 121 75 74 1000

44 45 95 114 111 100 91 97 97 56 56 49 1000

Source: NSSO.

In terms of earnings and consuming power, much ink has been expended over the last couple of decades on India’s burgeoning middle class – which is most likely to access HE fully. It is difficult to put figures of earnings on this middle class. A paper on the issue by Meyer and Birdsall (2012) uses 2009/2010 NSSO data to try and work out what number falls into the category of middle class, and concludes that: ‘if to be middle class is to be reasonably secure in material terms, then India’s ‘middle class’ constitutes less than 100 million people, and is crowded into the top decile along with the much smaller number of ‘rich’ households’ (p. 9). For the ages relevant to this survey, 17–22 years, there were a total of 142,424,634 persons in India by the 2011 Census (11.77% of the total population) – see Table 5.2. Delhi had a population of 16,753,236 (16.75 million), with 7,776,825 female (46.42% of the Delhi population), in 2011. Of these, 2,106,084 were 17–22 years old (see Table 5.3), 12.57% of the Delhi population. Table 5.2  Age by single year, India Age

Persons

Males

Females

17 18 19 20 21 22

21217467 27958147 20859088 28882735 19978972 23528225

11349449 15020851 10844415 14892165 10532278 12392976

9868018 12937296 10014673 13990570 9446694 11135249

Source: Census 2011.

84  Gupta, Katsarska, and Keskinova Table 5.3  Age by single year, Delhi NCT Age

Persons

Males

Females

17 18 19 20 21 22

309686 384172 311344 398344 328287 374251

171583 217908 173445 218155 179370 202588

138103 166264 137899 180189 148917 171663

Source: Census 2011.

In 2010–11, around 17 million students were enrolled at various stages in HE across India, of which 15,907,163 (86%) were undergraduates – see Figure 5.3 below based on earlier provisional UGC figures. Of the latter around 41.5% were female. Of the total number enrolled in HE in all states: 11.07% were SC, 4.39% were ST, and 27.57% were OBC. According to Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) figures for 2010–11, the total number enrolled at some level of higher and technical education in Delhi was 705,981 (44.48% female). Of these, 522,391 (from which 45.72% female) were enrolled for undergraduate degrees. Of the total numbers in higher and technical education in Delhi: 5.57% were SC, 1.39% were ST, and 4.97% were OBC. The variation from the norms here is perhaps linked to the limited scope Research 137668 (1%)

Diploma / Cerificate 171618 (1%)

Post-Graduate 2049124 (12%)

Graduate 14616473 (86%)

Figure 5.3 Student enrolment by stages in higher education, 2010–2011, provisional. Source: UGC 2012.

From country to institution 85 of the definition in the legislation of what constitutes a public institution. In this respect the situation changed marginally in the following year, 2011–12. A total of 736,490 students were enrolled in higher and technical education that year, of which 43.67% were female and 520,572 were registered for undergraduate degrees. Of the 2011–12 total, 9.58% were SC, 1.83% were ST. In terms of the schooling background of students entering university, MHRD figures for 2010–11 pre-university schools (intermediate/senior secondary) across the country was as follows: government schools 24,042 (34% of total); schools run by local bodies 625 (0.9%); private schools receiving government aid 19,401 (27.4%); unaided private schools 26,702 (37.7%). So, there were 70,770 such schools, of which 65.1% were private. In Delhi the respective figures were 750 (53.9%), 11 (0.8%), 159 (11.4%), 472 (33.9%), from a total of 1392 schools with 45.3% private. The total numbers of students enrolled across the country in class XII, the school year after which students seek entry into HE, was 9,260,272 (around 9.26 million), of which 4,082,627 (around 4.08 million, 44.09%) were female. In Delhi the class XII total was 196,318, of which 93,364 (47.56%) were female. In considering the situation in the Delhi region, it is perhaps worth noting a shift in HE enrolment in the recent past. Figures provided by the Government of Delhi come with a distinction between ‘technical/vocational training’ and ‘higher education’ (the UGC figures above are for both together as ‘higher and technical education’). Table 5.4 below is for ‘higher education’ enrolment in 2006–10, which is where the survey is located. Evidently, between 2007–8 and 2008–9, enrolment in this sector had leapt up in Delhi by over 50%. This is probably a result of the implementation of the 11th Five Year Plan from 2007, and a UGC report (2008) explained some of the factors involved. It is likely to have had a significant impact on infrastructure for HE – possibly a deleterious one. With Delhi University as the institution on which this framing exercise focuses, the features of the student population therein are as follows. According to the university’s 88th Annual Report (2011), in 2010–11 the university had 402,365 students in total, of which 145,502 students were enrolled in the 81 colleges. Of the college students, 137,089 were reading for undergraduate programmes (these are regular students). These seem small proportions Table 5.4  Enrolment in universities, colleges and other institutions Year

2006–07 2007–08 2008–09 2009–10

Universities, colleges and other institutions Male

Female

Total

85265 74755 168177 154616

78794 74822 93635 127371

164059 149577 261812 281987

Source: Government of NCT of Delhi 2012.

86  Gupta, Katsarska, and Keskinova of the total only because the total includes the 228,966 in the university’s School of Open Learning (distance learning students). Of that total number of enrolled students, 5.71% were SC and 0.86% ST. Of the 137,089 undergraduate regular college students, around 55.94% were female. In 2011–12 (DU 89th Annual Report, 2012), the total number enrolled was 488,135 students, of which 4.59% were SC and 1.4% ST. In the 81 colleges there were 167,288 students, of which 158,544 (with 55.19% female) were pursuing undergraduate programmes.

Broad subject areas UGC statistics on HE in India divide subjects of study into broad areas (Faculties). The distribution of numbers of students (with provisional data) between these across the country in 2010–11 is succinctly conveyed in Figure 5.4. Figure 5.4 gives an immediate visual impression of the dominance of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences (all included in Arts) amidst subjects of study at HE level for all programmes across India. This dominance is borne out by data about specifically the undergraduate level in 2010–11 and 2011–12. See Table 5.5 for 2010–11 numbers of students according to major subjects across India, and Table 5.6 for 2011–12 distribution of students according to major subjects as percentages of total enrolled students in higher and technical education across India. Veterinary Science 27423 (0.16%) Agriculture 93166 (0.55%) Medicine 652533 (3.85%)

Engineering/ Technology 2862439 (16.86%) Education 569961 (3.36%)

Law 327146 (1.93%) Others 232691 (1.37%)

Arts 6177730 (36.39%)

Commerce/ Management 2904752 (17.11%)

Science 3127042 (18.42%)

Figure 5.4  Faculty-wise student enrolment in higher education, 2010–2011. Source: UGC 2012.

From country to institution 87 Table 5.5  Enrolment at undergraduate level in major disciplines/subjects Discipline

Male

Female

Total

Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences Engineering & Technology Commerce Science Computer Science/Computer Application Medical Science Management Law Agriculture & Allied

3172697 1698593 1068429 785058 254262 175250 228831 87706 61089

3129519 699025 763135 682568 147012 201623 110126 40477 20924

6302216 2397618 1831564 1467626 401274 376873 338957 128183 82013

Source: MHRD.

Table 5.6 Percentage enrolment at undergraduate level in major disciplines/ subjects, 2011–2012 Discipline

Male

Female

Total

Arts Engineering & Technology Commerce Science IT & Computer Management Social Science Education Medical Science Indian Language Law Agriculture

30.27 24.71 14.70 10.89 5.40 3.12 2.67 2.06 1.93 1.01 1.00 0.42

37.97 12.00 14.28 13.19 4.66 2.16 3.03 3.95 3.71 1.38 0.59 0.26

33.79 18.89 14.51 11.94 5.06 2.68 2.83 2.93 2.75 1.18 0.82 0.35

Source: MHRD.

Within the broad area of Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences at undergraduate level (BA) there are two kinds of programme – with or without Honours – as there is for the broad area of science (BSc). Table 5.7 gives a comparison in terms of percentage of the total enrolled for named Arts and Science degrees, with and without Honours. Table 5.7 Percentage of enrolment in BA and BSc with or without Honours, 2011–2012 Name of programme

Male

Female

Total

BA: Bachelor of Arts BA(Hons): Bachelor of Arts (Honours) BSc: Bachelor of Science BSc(Hons): Bachelor of Science (Honours)

22.42 3.18 8.16 1.07

29.93 4.26 10.85 1.16

25.74 3.66 9.35 1.11

Source: MHRD.

88  Gupta, Katsarska, and Keskinova The survey discussed in the next chapter presents data relating to students engaging with BA (Hons) programmes in English, and students doing non– Honours courses in English which engaged with some other programme in Arts (with or without Honours) or some other named area. Since Delhi University is such a dominant presence in terms of undergraduate student numbers in the Delhi region, it makes sense to move straight to the institutional perspective here without a mediating regional perspective. In any case, reliable aggregated figures for subject areas in HE in the Delhi region are not available. Delhi University makes available fairly detailed subject-specific statistics, and for the remainder of this chapter we cite data relevant to regular undergraduates (primarily in the colleges) for the year 2011–12 (Delhi University’s 89th Annual Report, 2012), which is closest to the period covered in the survey. Broadly, but not exactly or neatly, corresponding to the broad subject areas (Faculties) of the UGC tables above, Faculty-wise distribution of regular undergraduates in Delhi University appears in Table 5.8 below. To compare the proportion of Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences undergraduate students for the all-India UGC figures in Table 5.6 above (also 2011–12) with that in Delhi University, the numbers for Faculties 1 (Arts), 3 (Applied Social Science and Humanities), 11 (Music and Fine Arts) and 12 (Social Sciences) from Table 5.8 need to be put together as a proportion of the total. That sum of Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences undergraduate regular students at Delhi University was thus 79,428 out of a total of 161,447 – so 49.2%. This is then unsurprisingly significantly larger than the national proportion of 30.27%; at the national level – naturally HE institutions which do not have Arts at all are a noteworthy part of the picture. At any rate, with undergraduate regular students in view, the importance of the Arts/Humanities/ Social Sciences to a general HE institution like Delhi University can scarcely be overstated. And comparably with the all-India figures for undergraduate programmes in Table 5.7 above, Table 5.9 below gives the numbers and percentages of total for BA and BA (Hons) in Delhi University in 2011–12. Compared to the national figures in Table 5.7, in Delhi University the BA (Hons) programmes are enormously more subscribed, outstripping the BA programmes. This too puts a perspective on the character of Delhi University – one of the elite universities in the country.

English as a subject area The Constitution of India (Part XVII, Ch. 1, as modified in December 2007) declares Hindi in the Devanagari script the official language of the Union but allows the continuing use of English for official purposes (in the records of Parliament, the Supreme Court, etc.), with states being able to appoint official languages within their territories. The returns on language usage by Census 2011 are yet to be released; by 2001 figures, English was claimed as a first subsidiary language by 86,125,221 persons and as a second subsidiary language by 38,993,066 – a total slightly over 125.12 million (12.16% of the total population). Figures for

Table 5.8 Faculty-wise distribution of undergraduate students (regular) at Delhi University, 2011–2012 Name of faculty

Regular Day

  1. Arts   2. Ayur. & Unani-Medicine   3. App. Soc. Sc. & Humanities   4. Commerce & Business   5. Education   6. Homoeopathic Medicine   7. Interdisciplinary & Appl. Scs.   8. Mathematical Sciences   9. Medical Sciences 10. Music & Fine Arts 11. Science 12. Social Sciences 13. Technology Grand total (undergraduate)

Evening and part-time

Certificate/ Diploma

Male

Female

Male

Female

Male

Female

13049 92

27031 254

6283 0

2133 0

2398 0

1997 0

1011

1163

92

38

451

270

12981

15914

5524

1723

0

0

0 90

1258 460

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

1464

1663

0

0

0

0

3866

4801

91

10

0

0

1236 407

1511 428

0 0

0 0

0 6

0 6

12248 7571 2408 56423

13534 12837 551 81405

0 1523 115 13628

0 422 5 4331

114 174 0 3143

106 138 0 2517

Source: DU 89th Annual Report.

Table 5.9 Delhi University regular students in BA programmes, number and percentage of total regular undergraduates, 2011–2012 Name of programme

Number of students

Percentage of total regular undergraduates (=161,447)

BA Prog. (including day, evening, and vocational studies) BA (Hons) (including Day and evening)

30632

18.97

42611

26.39

Source: DU 89th Annual Report.

90  Gupta, Katsarska, and Keskinova bilingualism and trilingualism in general across the country were also tracked according to age and urban and rural divide – these are shown in Table 5.10, with particular attention to the age group of interest here (15–24 years). Briefly, the total population of India has moved from 1.029 billion to 1.210 billion between 2001 and 2011; urbanization has increased from 27.81% in the 2001 Census to 31.16% in the 2011 Census. In the rural sector, the numbers speaking a second language as percentage of the total rural population (742.5 million) was 18.4%, and speaking a third language was 5.44%. In the urban sector, the equivalent proportions of the total urban population (286.12 million) for second language speakers was 41.37% and for third language speakers was 16.45%. Of the total number of people using a second language, the proportion that claims English as a second language is 33.77%. English language teaching in Indian schools varies widely according to state region and type of school, from being the medium of instruction to being a compulsory second language to being an option, and proficiency levels and quality of instruction vary widely too. It is difficult to obtain robust figures in this regard. English has been the dominant language of instruction in universitylevel institutions through much of the 20th century, but the situation in this respect now also varies widely, and reliable figures are hard to come by – for commerce and business subjects as for science and technology subjects it continues to dominate. A fairly nuanced sense of the competence in reading English among the age group this survey is concerned with can be obtained from a NBT-NCAER (Shukla 2010) survey covering 311,431 literate youth (within a broad age group of 13–35 year olds), across 207 rural districts and 199 towns in India. Of this sample, the survey found, about 25% read books for pleasure, relaxation and knowledge enhancement; and English is the preferred language for leisure reading of 5.3% of those (Hindi is for 33.4%, Marathi 13.2%, Bengali 7.7%). University-level students are likely to figure significantly among these. Table 5.10 Numbers speaking second and third languages by age-group, sex and rural/urban region Total/ AgeNumber speaking second language Rural/ group Persons Males Females Urban

Number speaking third language Persons

Males

Females

Total Total Total

Total 255026463 151488952 103537511 87499882 54630649 32869233 15–19 38357575 21529833 16827742 14769247 8305140 6464107 20–24 34482232 19994255 14487977 13792079 8177126 5614953

Rural Rural Rural

Total 136669344 15–19 22091245 20–24 18598695

83877845 12815654 11170397

52791499 40426853 26786428 13640425 9275591 7981442 4717434 3264008 7428298 6877277 4335306 2541971

Urban Total 118357119 Urban 15–19 16266330 Urban 20–24 15883537

67611107 8714179 8823858

50746012 47073029 27844221 19228808 7552151 6787805 3587706 3200099 7059679 6914802 3841820 3072982

Source: Census 2001.

From country to institution 91 Contemplating English as a subject area in Indian HE at an undergraduate level is a demanding matter. It involves a wide range of possibilities: studying for a BA (Hons) in English (majoring in English literature and/or linguistics); studying English as a supplementary language and/or literature subject with any undergraduate programme, with or without Honours; English for some variety of special purpose (for business, technology and computing, etc.) in applied or vocational programmes; English as a supporting subject with a focus on developing proficiency levels. The all-India spread and variations are of considerable complexity, and data of this sort is yet to be reliably gathered. In the survey discussed in the next chapter, the student responses are divided into two sorts – those doing a BA with Honours in English, and those doing an English course of any sort as a part, but not a major part, of an undergraduate programme (with or without Honours). That English has been a popular subject area in HE and is becoming more so seems to be widely accepted, and any sampling and comparison of recruitment figures from institutions offering Honours programmes in English and other subjects generally bear that out. This is indicatively also borne out by figures of post-graduate study; in 2010–11 UGC gathered figures for Indian post-graduate programmes for foreign languages and Indian languages – Table 5.11 gives the figures for the top two foreign languages (English and French) and the top three Indian languages (Hindi, Telugu and Bengali). These speak for themselves. Given the great complexity of English as a subject area in undergraduate programmes across the country, and therefore also in the Delhi region, it is expedient to focus on BA (Hons) English programmes as a particular point of interest in the survey. For universities in the Delhi region, this programme is overwhelmingly dominated by the University of Delhi. Of the universities offering BA (Hons) English – i.e. English as major – in 2011–12: the Bharat Ratna Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University had a total undergraduate population for BA (Hons) English of around 140 (admitting 35 each year for this four-year programme), Jamia Millia Islamia had around 180 (admitting 60 each year for this three-year programme); whereas the University of Delhi had 6,130 (distributed among the 46 colleges out of 81 offering the programme). Table 5.11 Enrolment at PhD, MPhil and post-graduate level in major disciplines/ subjects (based on actual response), 2010–2011 Discipline PhD

English French Hindi Telugu Bengali

MPhil

Post-graduate

Male Female

Total

Male

Female Total Male

Female Total

833 45 726 257 55

1637 120 1435 362 114

403 20 307 56 57

565 18 254 23 49

53793 168 22472 11621 17587

Source: MHRD.

804 75 709 105 59

968 38 561 79 106

40738 159 17265 10618 10243

94531 327 39737 22239 27830

92  Gupta, Katsarska, and Keskinova Delhi University replaced the conventional three-year undergraduate programme structure in 2013–14 with a four-year programme structure. The latter was designed to lay greater and compulsory emphasis across all subject areas on employability and general knowledge at foundation level – according to the university’s website, ‘to strengthen the educational base of the students in relation to the grand challenges facing India’. This naturally altered the composition of the English curriculum at all levels and therefore the experience of students in that respect in 2013–14. Insofar as Delhi University students featured predominantly in the survey in question here, it can therefore be regarded as indicative only for the period which is covered by the framing data above (2010–12) and the survey period itself (November 2012– February 2013). In the academic year 2014–15 the four-year undergraduate programme was withdrawn in favour of the conventional three-year structure.

Planning and administering the survey The in-depth survey questionnaire was adapted from a template used earlier for a similar survey on ES in Bulgaria in 2007/2008 (see Katsarska and Keskinova 2011) – the Appendix gives a sense of the run of questions and options in the questionnaire, along with the responses. The process of adapting it for suitability in the Indian, and specifically Delhi, context involved a series of workshops and meetings (in 2012, to finalize the questionnaire in October 2012) with teachers of English from the Arts Faculty and eleven colleges of Delhi University, and from the English Departments of Jamia Millia Islamia, Bharat Ratna Dr. B. R. Ambedkar University, and Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University. These teachers then distributed the questionnaire and collected the returns in their respective institutions. The questionnaire was designed to obtain data on three fronts: the background of students engaging with university-level undergraduate English courses/ programmes in Delhi; their experience of engaging with those courses/ programmes; and their longer term expectations arising from such study in terms of careers and lifestyles. These three fronts were addressed in three parts in the questionnaire. The first part sought information on programme, year of study, age, sex, education background, category, languages used, family income, and how study was financially supported. This part broadly complies with the kind of information gathered from students within university-level institutions at the time of admission and subsequently. Much of the above framing material was aggregated from such institutional data. The second part asked for information on the student’s expectations of the course/programme at time of entry and currently (thereby hoping to obtain an understanding of progression), view of the contents of and arrangements for the course/programme, and grasp of the larger academic environment of the discipline of English. This kind of information appears to be very rarely collected from students in India in a manner that is comparable across specific institutions. The third part primarily seeks information about the student’s career aspirations and skills at point of entry and currently, and also of perceptions of the wider world. Such data is occasionally collected from students by Indian HE institutions and colleges, but unevenly and in ways that discourage comparison.

From country to institution 93 In a broad way, the questionnaire as a whole could be regarded as a student attitude survey relevant to current provision for regular students of BA courses/ programmes (Honours and not-Honours) in English in the Delhi region. The great majority of questions were designed to elicit quantitative data, with limited yes/no options and tick boxes; but a few questions also enabled some collection of qualitative data. In particular, the final question offered students the opportunity to reflect more broadly on their experience and expectations: ‘How have your English courses contributed (positively or negatively) to your development as a person? E.g., has it influenced your ideological and cultural perspectives, extracurricular/extra-professional interests, social interactions, sense of identity. Please explain briefly.’ The questionnaire invited anonymous responses from students. In the workshops and meetings to formulate the questionnaire, one of the concerns of English teachers in Delhi institutions was regarding some of their students’ ability to comprehend the questions and respond to them, uncertainty arose from a sense of the low level of English proficiency among some students and the risk they would not understand the questions. It was suggested that the questionnaire might be made available in both Hindi and English; however, that was countered by the argument that as university-level students engaging with university-level English courses they should all be equal to comprehending the questionnaire. Many of the modifications to the questionnaire suggested by these teachers and adopted were to render the questions clear and explicit from the students’ point of view. The final questionnaire was agreed by all. It was decided that students would be told that they have the option to answer questions which request more than a yes/no answer or a tick in Hindi. In the event, out of the 575 usable returns only two students did so: both declared that this was on the grounds of national allegiance rather than shaky proficiency. It is possible, however, that in this respect the language of the questionnaire tacitly encouraged selectivity of respondents: i.e. those students who were less confident about their English chose not to respond. There were also some qualms about including a question about category. However, these were overruled in favour of including an option ‘Don’t wish to answer’ – only 2.7% of respondents took recourse to it. The teachers who administered the questionnaires answered invitations sent by the project coordinators to a larger range of institutions in the Delhi region than represented in the survey: they more or less selected themselves and engaged with this project from their own desire to have such data – no remuneration or other incentive was available for doing this. The questionnaire was distributed in print copies by them to random cohorts of students. Students or cohorts of students were not pre-selected; questionnaires were handed out by the teachers in different classrooms as and when they were able, and students were given time within teaching hours to complete and return them. These returned questionnaires were then collected by the project coordinators and handed over for collation and processing of data. The random elements in this process, both in terms of institutions represented and in terms of the students therein who responded, means that nothing can be inferred about the profile of the institutions in question from the survey data. They are named and the

94  Gupta, Katsarska, and Keskinova numbers of responses from each accounted only to convey a sense of the spread and scale of the surveying process, not because the results are indicative in any way of pedagogy and performance in particular institutions. The survey results should be read as indicative in a general way of the experiences and attitudes of undergraduate students in the Delhi region who are engaging with formal university-level courses/programmes of English.

Processing the survey responses The survey results are presented in the next chapter as already indicated. Here we offer a more technical commentary on the processing of the survey responses. To begin with, we may note that the nature of the data collected allows for meaningful comparisons between defined sub-aggregates of responses among the respondents. Such comparisons are indicative of difference between those subgroups in the overall group of respondents. To ensure statistical relevance in such comparisons, it is sufficient to have enough particular cases of difference between the two (or more) sub-aggregates. For the present survey the number of such cases should be over 30. More generally, the processing of the survey results underwent several stages. Firstly, manual sifting through the filled-in questionnaires to gauge the overall level of quality and completeness of the responses given as well as to register logical discrepancies, if any. For instance, if a respondent had listed several languages and indicated the levels of competence in each of the shown areas (speaking, writing, and reading) but had neglected to indicate their overall number, this is easily registered manually. Another example of inconsistent quality in the responses would be the responses to questions 25 and 26 of the questionnaire (see Appendix). Here about 52% of the respondents (300 out of 575 returned questionnaires in total) indicated more than one response in the designated domains of career development. In order to process these responses for overall constituency, the team made the executive decision to count all responses, irrespective of whether the condition of the question was observed. This stage of processing was accompanied by manually codifying the portfolio of languages listed by the respondents according to a pre-set classificatory directory (i.e. each language indicated in an open manner was given a numerical expression). Secondly, input of data into specialized software for data processing and analysis – IBM SPSS Statistics 19. With regard to the stated linguistic competence of the respondents, variables were created for the indicated levels of competence for each of the listed languages on the basis of 3% of responses (i.e. indicated by 15 respondents at least). Given the free choice to name the languages they ‘possess’ the respondents listed 54 different languages and spoken varieties thereof. A large number of those (29) were indicated by 1 or 2 students only. In order to obtain reliable data for the levels of linguistic competence (basic, moderate, good, or fluent) of different skills (reading, speaking, and writing), a sufficient number of respondents was needed who have indicated that they use this language. This is why only the data for those languages which were listed by over 3% (at least 15 students) was processed. Those languages were Hindi, English, Punjabi, Urdu,

From country to institution 95 Sanskrit, French, Malayalam, and Bengali. But since the calculation of the mean level of linguistic competence depends on the number of levels indicated (the quantity of the sample), for comparative purposes, only the first four languages are shown below – Hindi, English, Punjabi and French, as those were indicated by 30 students or more, 30 being the statistical boundary which marks the sample as sufficiently large. Further, the data was also recoded on the basis of variables such as ‘university’ and ‘age’. The input data were summarized in a range of different ways, through (a) one-dimensional and two-dimensional distributions; (b) table presentations which, unlike one- and two-dimensional distributions, give the opportunity to simultaneously present a large number of cross-sections and allow for a fairly clear presentation of a large amount of information; (c) pie, bar and scatter diagrams for the graphic presentation of results; (d) summarizing statistical values, such as means and standard error of mean. These summarizing statistical values are graphically represented in Figure 6.6 in the next chapter, where the means for the levels of linguistic competence for the first four most widely indicated languages are shown. These were also used in the table presentation of the results for the first eight most frequently indicated languages. Besides the above-outlined description of the results, the analysis included data comparison according to a range of variables. The methods which are used here to determine whether the differences observed are statistically relevant are hypotheses tests. The choice of specific test depends on: (a) the level of measuring (type of scale); (b) the form of distribution; (c) whether the samples yielding the parameters for comparison are dependent on or independent of each other; (d) the number of compared parameters. According to the first two factors, these tests fall into two categories – non-parametric and parametric tests. Parametric methods are applied when there is a normal distribution of quantitative variables measured on an interval scale. In the case of our present survey, these are absent. Even if we regard the 5-grade scales in the present survey as such, in most cases we do not encounter a normal distribution of quantitative variables. Therefore, the present analysis relies mostly on non-parametric tests due to the larger number of weak scales. The non-parametric methods do not pose requirements to the scale or distribution, which makes them more applicable in the social sphere where ordinal and nominal (known as weak) scales prevail. In the present survey an example of a nominal scale is question 20 ‘Do you take part in extracurricular activities in your institution which help with your English studies?’ that requires a verbal yes/no response; while questions which presuppose a gradable answer scale of the type ‘Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree, Strongly agree’ are ordinal. The comparison between the two sub-aggregates ‘Honours’ and ‘not-Honours’ which is graphically presented in Figures 6.8, 6.9, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14 in the next chapter has been conducted by the Mann-Whitney Test for two independent samples (populations) at a 95% probability guarantee. The Mann-Whitney Test is a nonparametric test for comparing the parameters (distributions) of two sub-aggregates (populations). In the theory of statistical verification of hypotheses the decision as to whether the difference between the parameters which are being compared (means, relative samples, etc.) is coincidental or logical cannot be 100% since there’s always

96  Gupta, Katsarska, and Keskinova the margin of error in working with samples. The decision as to the probability guarantee lies with the researcher and in Social Sciences it is customary to rely on 95% probability guarantees, i.e. allowing for a 5% error probability (first order error) when viewing the difference as significant (simply put, when establishing that ‘there is difference’) rather than otherwise (i.e. that ‘there is no difference’). The analysis of the survey results in our case also relied on multi-dimensional methods for registering interdependencies between variables such as factor analysis. For the analysis of the relation between one dependent and many independent variables we have used multi-dimensional regression analysis. Factor analysis is a method for analysing the relations between a large number of characteristics (variables), measured on an interval scale. The limitations of the scales we have chosen notwithstanding, the method can be used with ordinal scales as well (such as in our case). As a result, the input dependent variables are substituted with a smaller number of latent variables (factors) which reveal the structure of interdependencies among the initial range of variables. The first factor encompasses the interrelated variables, the correlation of which conditions the largest portion of the dispersal. The second factor captures those from the remaining variables wherein interrelatedness indicates the most significant correlation among the remaining variables in the dispersal. Factor variables are indicated on an interval scale, i.e. every case is quantified (receives a numerical grade) on the factor variable. This allows us to use the factors variable in subsequent analyses of the regressive, clustering, etc. type. The illustration of such a type of factor analysis which was applied in the present study is the reduction (summarizing) of respondents’ ‘expectations’ (Figure 6.10 in the next chapter) into three groups where every group is sufficiently homogeneous in its makeup. Homogeneity depends on interpretation and in some cases factors can be ‘dirty’, i.e. they may encompass a set of variables which have nothing in common and cannot be given an overarching label. With regard to the parameter of ‘expectations’ in the present survey, we have two homogeneous groups – ‘to study literatures’ and ‘to improve linguistic competence’. The third group is variegated in content across linguistics, translation and creative writing. When we put these three factor variables through a regressive analysis with regard to the dependent variable ‘Were your expectations met?’ (Question 14), the results obtained reveal that it is only the expectation ‘to study literatures’ which has been most fully met according to our respondents. The next chapter presents a detailed analysis of the results obtained through the survey following several broad areas of concern. First, it outlines the demographics of the cohort within the context of wider demographic trends at Delhi University and data from other sources where available, and reflects on the experience and expectations of students as these emerge through the responses given. Secondly, we present and discuss the results which have a bearing on the curricula and pedagogy of ES courses in both Honours and not-Honours programmes/courses in a comparative mode where departures and overlaps are statistically significant, as well as for the general population of the survey. Thereafter the chapter focuses on students’ perceptions with regard to skills fostered by the educational experience of ES programmes/courses and vis-à-vis their perceived social value. The latter aspect

From country to institution 97 is fleshed out further with regard to the changing dynamics of envisaged career goals and prospective employment areas. The chapter concludes by discussing the students’ responses to the open questions of the survey which are indicative of the perceived ‘value’ of pursuing ES in relation to ‘market considerations’, issues related to rights and identity and empowerment, and reflections on moral ‘value’.

References Census of India 2001 and 2011: http://censusindia.gov.in/ Government of NCT of Delhi (2012). Statistical Abstract of Delhi 2012. Delhi: Directorate of Economics and Statistics. http://delhi.gov.in/DoIT/DES/ Publication/abstract/SA2012.pdf Jamia Millia Islamia (2012). Annual Report April 2011 to March 31, 2012. http:// jmi.ac.in/upload/menuupload/university_annual_report_english_2011_2012.pdf Katsarska, Milena and Donka Keskinova (2011). ‘Student Perceptions of English Studies in Bulgaria’ Nordic Journal of English Studies 10:1. 156–80. http://ojs. ub.gu.se/ojs/index.php/njes/article/view/657/608 Meyer, Christian and Nancy Birdsall (2012, December). ‘New Estimates of India’s Middle Class’. Centre for Global Development, Washington DC. http://www.cgdev .org/sites/default/files/archive/doc/2013_MiddleClassIndia_TechnicalNote_ CGDNote.pdf Ministry of Human Resource and Development (MHRD), Government of India: http://mhrd.gov.in/statist – especially, ‘Statistics of Higher and Technical Education, 2010–11’, ‘Statistics of Higher and Technical Education, 2011–12’ and ‘Report on All India Survey of Higher Education, 2011–12’. Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India (2007, 1 December modified version). Constitution of India. http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation (MOSPI), Government of India (2011). Selected Socio-Economic Statistics, India, 2011. Delhi: Central Statistics Office. http://mospi.nic.in/mospi_new/upload/sel_socio_eco_stats_ ind_2001_28oct11.pdf National Sample Survey Office (NSSO), under MOSPI: http://mospi.nic.in/Mospi_ New/site/home.aspx Shukla, Rajesh (2010). Indian Youth: Demographics and Readership. New Delhi: National Book Trust (NBT) and National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER). University of Delhi (2012). 88th Annual Report 2010–2011. http://www.du.ac.in/ du/uploads/Rules_Policies_Ordinances/AnnualReports/88_AnunalReport.pdf [note: in the URL, the spelling: 88_AnunalReport works, AnnualReport does not] University of Delhi (2013). 89th Annual Report 2011–2012. http://www.du.ac.in/ du/uploads/Rules_Policies_Ordinances/AnnualReports/89_AnunalReport.pdf [see the previous entry] University Grants Commission (UGC) (2008). Higher Education in India: Issues Related to Expansion, Inclusiveness, Quality and Finance. New Delhi: UGC. http://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/pub/report/12.pdf UGC (2012). Higher Education at a Glance. New Delhi: UGC. http://www.ugc. ac.in/ugcpdf/208844_HEglance2012.pdf UGC (2013). Annual Report 2011–2012. New Delhi: UGC. http://www.ugc.ac.in/ pdfnews/Annual_Report_2011–2012_English_Final.pdf

6 Analysis of the undergraduate survey in Delhi Subarno Chattarji, Milena Katsarska, and Donka Keskinova

This chapter analyses the survey of undergraduate English Studies (ES) students outlined in the last two sections of Chapter 5, following the foci in the survey questionnaire (see Appendix) on demographics, expectations, experiences, and aspirations. Apart from highlighting the findings from this unique survey, the chapter also presents related observations on pedagogy, scholarship, and social factors. While the survey includes a wide array of undergraduates at universities in Delhi, a majority of the respondents (380 of 575) are from eleven constituent colleges of Delhi University (DU). As noted in Chapter 5, DU students surveyed represent a cohort that completed a three-year BA degree before it was replaced in 2013-14 by a four-year undergraduate programme – which was revoked thereafter. In the survey data below a distinction is made between students majoring in English for their BA (Honours) or studying for a BA without a major or a Bachelors-level programme focused on some other subject but with ES courses (all characterized as not-Honours here).

Demographics Central universities constitute 7% of degree-awarding institutions and state universities 47% in India (see Figure 5.1).The context of this survey is evenly divided between two central universities (Delhi and Jamia Millia) and two state universities (Ambedkar and Indraprastha). At one level this survey is limited by its focus on ES in Delhi and yet that limitation serves to highlight the primacy of Delhi (and its suburban areas, the National Capital Territory [NCT], if private universities were included) which, as the previous chapter noted, is home to four central universities and five state universities. It seems entirely appropriate to Table 6.1  Year-wise percentages, all respondents Year of study

Honours

Not Honours

All

1 2 3

33% 23% 44%

30% 31% 39%

31% 27% 41%

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 99 begin a process of enumerating and understanding the attitudes of undergraduate students and ES from Delhi given its locus as a HE hub. Tables 6.1 to 6.3 show some of the characteristics of the survey respondents as a whole: Table 6.1 shows the division between Honours and not-Honours, Table 6.2 age demographics, Table 6.3 gender. Table 6.2  Age demographic, all respondents Age

Honours

Not Honours

All

≤18 19 20 21≥

26% 24% 34% 16%

22% 35% 29% 14%

24% 30% 31% 15%

Table 6.3  Gender ratio, all respondents Sex

Honours

Not Honours

All

F M

82% 18%

63% 37%

72% 28%

Given the Indian education model of 10+2+3 – with ten years of initial schooling followed by two years and a school-leaving examination which leads to three years at undergraduate level at university – it is understandable that a majority of the respondents (61%) are in the 19–20 age group. The gender ratio overwhelmingly in favour of women is in keeping with the gender bias at least in BA (Honours) English enrolment in DU. Our survey respondents reflect a larger trend in ES in India not only at the undergraduate level but for MPhil and PhD programmes (see Table 5.11). English Honours is regarded as a ‘soft’ subject, unmoored to the realities of life, and thus has traditionally attracted larger numbers of women. This stereotype has little to do with substantive aspects of literary study and much to do with the ways in which English in particular and the Humanities in general are positioned within academic administrations beside market-driven ‘hard’, ‘useful’ disciplines – such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (the STEM fields). Although the acronym STEM originated in the US and is widely used there and in the UK, the emphasis on such applied areas as ‘valued’ disciplines has been part of the Indian Higher Education (HE) landscape for quite a while. The special status of Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs), conferred by the Institutes of Technology Act 1961, underlines the long-standing emphasis on functional knowledge in Indian HE. Of the DU colleges included in the survey, four – Indraprastha, Jesus and Mary, Kamla Nehru, and Mata Sundri – are women’s colleges. The question of category continues to be a fraught one, related as it is to ‘reservations’ – the Indian Government policy of affirmative action in HE.

100  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova The Indian Government set up a commission with B. P. Mandal as chair (known as the Mandal Commission) in 1978 to consider reservation of seats in public universities and government jobs for historically disenfranchised castes, including Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). The Commission’s report appeared in 1980, but acceptance of its recommendations by the central government in 1990 led to a backlash from upper castes with DU as an epicentre and several protesters immolating themselves. The primary argument against ‘reservations’ was that ‘merit’ would be adversely impacted and HE standards – particularly in institutes of technology or medicine – would decline. Much of the protest was alarmist, deriving from upper-caste desire to cling on to privilege and exclusive access to HE. As James English, citing Bourdieu and Passeron points out, HE tends to ‘legitimate social power by euphemizing it as intellectual merit’ (English 2012: 56) and that was exactly the case in the protests against caste-based reservations. Figure 6.1 indicates that more than two decades after the Mandal Commission, anxieties associated with the squeezing out of upper caste candidates are unfounded. Table 6.4 represents category fields for DU. These figures could be contextualized within a wider frame of category admissions in DU, wherein the legally binding quotas of 15% for SC, 7.5% for ST, and 27% for OBC are seldom maintained. This has implications not only in terms of denial of legitimate access but also allocation of public funds for specific ends which may not always be met. Table 6.5 gives a sense of the disjunctions between admissions in thirty DU colleges in 2010–11, the seats reserved, funds allocated, and teaching positions sanctioned on the basis of OBC admissions that were not made. The focus on OBC admissions is instructive because funds and teaching 0.4% 3% OBC 9% ST 6% SC 7%

General 75%

Figure 6.1  Category analysis, all respondents

Table 6.4  Category percentages: DU respondents Category

DU respondents

General SC ST OBC Don’t wish to answer Foreign quota

78.6%  7.4%  6.9%  4.4%  2.2%  0.5%

Table 6.5  DU admissions data, 2010–2011 Name of college

OBC OBC OBC seats vacant & Grant received seats admissions percentage

 1. A  diti 223 Mahavidyalaya*  2. D  aulat Ram* 174  3. D  een Dayal 197 Upadhyaya*  4. D  elhi College 155 of Arts and Commerce  5. Gargi 366  6. Hansraj* 307  7. Hindu 252  8. H  ome Economics 138  9. I ndraprastha 273 255 10. J anki Devi Memorial* 11. Kamala Nehru* 232  eshav 139 12. K Mahavidyalaya*  ady Irwin 266 13. L 14. Lady Shri Ram 203 15. Lakshmibai 350  aharaja 171 16. M Agrasen 17. Maitreyi* 259  ata Sundri* 225 18. M 19. Miranda 274  otilal 182 20. M Nehru (E) 21. PGDAV* 259 22. Rajdhani* 254

Posts sanctioned

 81

142

63.68% —



 70 170

104  27

59.77% 9,87,25,000 13.70% —

62 39

 90

 65

41.93%

5,69,00,000

17

181 267 155  24  65  53

185  40  97 114 208 202

50.55% 10,76,00,000 13.02% 34,00,000 38.49% 8,23,25,000 82.61% 5,46,00,000 76.19% 15,61,00,000 79.21% 7,43,00,000

38 63 44 57 28

 67  52

165  87

71.12% 7,65,00,000 62.59% —

12 32

110  70 105 108

156 133 245  63

58.65% 8,39,25,000 65.52% 8,17,25,000 70.00% 10,59,83,835 36.84% —

25 23 78 —

197  15 163 42

 62 210 111 140

23.94% 9,53,00,000 93.33% — 40.51% 11,07,91,351 76.92% 6,97,00,000

59 — 31   7

109 197

150  57

57.92% 22.44%

 12  56

9,61,00,000 9,32,25,000

(continued)

102  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova Table 6.5  (continued) Name of college

OBC OBC OBC seats vacant & Grant received seats admissions percentage

23. Ram Lal Anand 182 110 (E)* 24. Ramjas 361 119 25. S atyawati (E) 218 145 26. S haheed Bhagat 255 96 Singh 27. S haheed 58 22 Rajguru 89 28. S hyama Prasad 337 Mukherji 29. S ri Aurobindo* 261 108 30. V  ocational 230 78 Studies Total: 7059 3158

Posts sanctioned

 72

39.56%

6,28,25,000

 40

242  73 159

67.04% 14,77,00,000 31.48% 7,04,00,000 62.35% 7,57,00,000

 39  24  15

 36

62.06% —



248

73.59% 10,46,00,000

 31

153 152

58.62% 66.09%

 57  25

3901

55.26% 203,39,50,186 905

5,44,25,000 7,11,00,000

Source: Academic Forum for Social Justice. * These colleges have admitted more than 30% excess in the general category.

positions were specially sanctioned in 2008 as part of what is known as the OBC expansion, a move by the central government to increase enrolment from disadvantaged constituencies in HE.1 So, the actual percentage of OBC reservation implemented in 30 colleges of DU in 2010–11 was about 12% (instead of 27%) as about 15% of seats remained vacant. While we do not wish to overly extrapolate from overall DU admissions date to ES, it is interesting that the composition of ES respondents is indicative of a broader trend. DU and its constituent colleges avail of public funding, do not fill quotas for which those funds are allocated, and face no financial or administrative penalties on this account.2 A majority of respondents entered university from private schools (73%) and a slightly smaller majority (68%) were Delhi-based prior to admission (Figures 6.2 and 6.3 respectively). There is a fair degree of correspondence between the survey figures and pan-Indian ones for those educated at private or non-government schools: the all-India figure is 65% as compared to 73% for those surveyed. The figure for Delhi overall, however, is lower, 45.3%. The percentage of private school attendance in Delhi may seem surprising given the concentration of private schools in Delhi and the NCT, but it is worth keeping in mind that there are a large number of government-run schools as well. As per the Delhi Government there were 5043 schools in Delhi which includes 2636 pre-primary and primary schools, 583 middle schools, 1824 secondary/senior secondary schools with enrolment of 37.39 million students. Out of the total of 5043 schools, 2666 were government schools and 2377 private schools. The break-up of types of

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 103 International school 3%

Other 3%

Government school 22%

NonGovernment school 73%

Figure 6.2  Education background, all respondents.

I moved to Delhi for my studies 32%

I lived in Delhi prior to my university studies 68%

Figure 6.3  Mobility, all respondents.

schools attended by students (Table 6.6) is indicative of the extent to which government schools predominate even in an area with a significant concentration of private schools.

104  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova Table 6.6  School attendance generally in Delhi, 2010–2011 School level

Government schools

Government-aided schools

Private schools

Primary Middle Secondary/Sr. Secondary

60% 72% 69%

4% 3% 5%

36% 25% 26%

Source: Delhi NCT government.

The fact that our survey cohort contains a majority of private school-educated students might have something to do with the income distribution. If the income distribution in the survey is compared with the Monthly Per Capita Expenditure data in Table 5.1 in the previous chapter, a distinct bias toward the upper end of the income spectrum is noticed – suggesting a correlation between this bias and the ability to pay private school fees. In aggregate 55% of our DU survey respondents came from families with a monthly income above Rs. 50,000 and 53.4% overall (Figure 6.4, Table 6.7). Considering that 96.2% said that their study was supported by parental income, and that DU and the other institutions surveyed are public institutions, this is a significant figure. The combination of income, private school education, and subsequent HE enrolment is indicative of the ways in which public universities could be said to serve an increasingly private clientele in terms of economic capability and status. This becomes more apparent when these figures are collated with admissions for OBCs in whose name additional public funds are channelled. 1.1% in DU and 0.7% overall claimed that they were recipients of fellowships/stipends (Table 6.8).

Over Rs. 200,000 12% Between Rs. 100,000 and 200,000 14%

Between Rs. 50,000 and 100,000 27%

Below Rs. 20,000 16%

Between Rs. 20,000 and 50,000 31%

Figure 6.4  Family monthly income.

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 105 Table 6.7  Family monthly income Family income monthly

DU respondents

All respondents

Below Rs. 20,000 Between Rs. 20,000 and 50,000 Between Rs. 50,000 and 100,000 Between Rs. 100,000 and 200,000 Over Rs. 200,000

14.5% 30.5% 28.5% 14.8% 11.7%

15.8% 30.8% 26.7% 14.3% 12.4%

Table 6.8  Financial support for HE How are your studies at the university supported? DU respondents only All respondents My parents support me I work full-time and study I work part-time and study I have a stipend/fellowship Other

96.2%  0.8%  4.3%  1.1%  0.8%

96.4%  1.1%  3.6%  0.7%  1.1%

DU fees remain nominal at Rs. 200 for Enrolment and Rs. 15 for tuition yearly. However, Kirori Mal College, one of DU’s constituent colleges, charges Rs. 8,000 for BA (Hons) admissions, Jesus and Mary College Rs. 11,550 per year, and St Stephen’s College Rs. 23,660 annually for Humanities students, to take three random examples of colleges included in our survey (figures are for 2013–14). Residential fees at St Stephen’s are Rs. 44,450 per year (2014). Course fees at Jamia Millia Islamia for BA (Hons) in English are Rs. 5,600 while students at Ambedkar University pay Rs. 1000 per credit (a total of 96 credits over three years are required for graduation) and Rs. 500 per semester toward a Student Welfare Fund for six semesters (figures are for 2013–14).3 There is a wide variation in tuition in the institutions surveyed and coupled with costs of board and lodging a Humanities degree is a fairly expensive proposition in an expensive city such as Delhi. Paying guest (PG) accommodation rents vary depending on locality and gender (between Rs. 7,000 to 22,000 per month in localities close to university campuses, judging from paying guest website quotations in 2013–14). The family income reported by survey respondents might also be contextualized in terms of the average monthly take home pay of a lecturer in DU (or any central university) which is about Rs. 50,000.

Experience, expectations, interests The self-reported English language competency of those surveyed is 100%. To the question ‘Specify which languages do you use/can communicate in’ respondents marked English, Hindi, and Punjabi in that order (Figure 6.5). Interestingly, French seems to be used by more students than Bengali, Malayalam, or Tamil which have significant populations of native speakers in

106  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova

English

100%

Hindi

90%

Punjabi

17%

French

9%

Sanskrit

5%

Bengali

5%

Malayalam

4%

Urdu

4%

Tamil

3%

German

3%

Assamese

2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Figure 6.5  Language usage, communication.

India. 98.7% of students surveyed were Indian nationals. Forty-four languages were listed by DU students as used for communication; fifty-one languages were said to be in use overall. The language competence figures reported are equally high for English but not so for French (Figure 6.6). Mean figures of 4.53, 4.34, and 4.30 for reading, writing, speaking in English respectively are quite remarkable given the mix of courses (Honours 5,0 4,5

Mean

4,0 3,5 3,0 2,5 2,0 English

Hindi Reading

Figure 6.6  Language competence.

Punjabi Writing

French

Speaking

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 107 and not-Honours) and range of institutions surveyed. The percentage of Honours and not-Honours in DU, for example, was 56.8 and 43.2 (n=380) and overall 44.7 and 55.3 (n=575) respectively. The percentage of Honours to not-Honours is important in the ways in which it reflects a wider demographic both within and outside DU. The range of institutions surveyed and breakup in terms of Honours and not-Honours is indicated in Table 6.9. From St Stephen’s and Indraprastha Colleges on the one hand, to the College of Vocational Studies and Bharti College on the other, there is a variance in student intake, level of English competence, kinds of courses offered, and attitudes toward ES. DU colleges compete for students and there is an implicit hierarchy amongst them. For instance, Shri Ram College of Commerce is considered the premier institution for Commerce and Economics or St Stephen’s the most desirable destination for the liberal arts. In contrast, some of the other DU colleges are seen as less sought after and less academically rigorous. Similarly, Jamia Millia attracts students from particular economic, religious, and class backgrounds in view of its role as a minority institution of excellence; the relatively new Ambedkar University (founded in 2008) focuses on less traditional courses in the Humanities and Social Sciences; Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University is primarily a science- and management-oriented institution where English communication skills are emphasized at the undergraduate level. For such a heterogeneous body of students to claim 100% proficiency in English is both problematic and revealing. That such self-reporting reveals the aspirational aspect of ES is partly indicated in Figures 6.7 and 6.8, detailing initial expectations of/from ES courses. The extent to which survey respondents felt their expectations of courses/ programmes were met after they engaged with them is indicated in Figure 6.9.

Table 6.9  Honours, not-Honours: percentage Institution

Hons.

Rajdhani College, DU Deshbandu College, DU Jesus and Mary College, DU Kamla Nehru College, DU Shri Ram College of Commerce, DU Bharti College, DU St Stephen’s College, DU College of Vocational Studies, DU Mata Sundri College, DU Indraprastha College for Women (I.P. College), DU Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, DU Jamia Millia Islamia (University) Ambedkar University Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (I.P. University)

18.3% 12.5%  4.3%  6.6% 12.5% 16.3% 13.6%  5.1% 10.9%

Not-Hons.

All

 2.8%  9.7% 10.1%  9.4% 11.0%  0.3% 31.8%  4.4%  2.2%  1.6%  1.3%  6.3%  9.1%

 8.2%  7.1%  7.3%  8.5%  5.2%  6.1%  5.7% 17.6%  9.7%  7.3%  0.9%  3.0%  8.3%  5.0%

108  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova

improve my English writing skills

66%

improve my English speaking skills

20%

53%

26%

acquire proficiency in translating and interpreting

45%

29%

study English language and linguistics

45%

29%

study creative writing

50%

23%

improve my English reading skills

46%

25%

study the great literatures of the world

46%

24%

study Indian literature and culture

39%

26%

improve my English listening skills

39%

26%

study the theory of literature/culture or critical theory

40%

23%

study British and American literature

36%

be informed about English-speaking cultures generally

29% 0%

24% 29%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

True for me

Somewhat true for me

Figure 6.7  Initial expectations of/from ES courses: ‘true’ and ‘somewhat true’ for all.

Of not-Honours students it is worth noting that 63.4% expected to improve English speaking skills, 67% English writing skills, and 48.4% English reading skills (see Figure 6.8). The figures jump to 87.7%, 85.1%, and 73.0% respectively if the ‘somewhat true’ percentages are added to those. Of these a majority (63.6%) stated their ‘expectations were somewhat met’ and 14.0% that they ‘were fully met’ (see Figure 6.9). The expectations component can be further broken down under Honours and not-Honours respondents. Figure 6.8 shows how acquisition of English skills – particularly communicative ones – is a primary attraction of ES amongst both Honours and not-Honours students but has a particular resonance for the latter. While the expectation gap is only 2% for improving writing skills and 5% for reading skills, it is 22% for English speaking skills – a much more marketable and hence desirable skill in India. Apropos difference in attitudes between Honours and Not-Honours, it should be borne in mind that the statistically significant difference is anything at or above 8%. Insofar as teaching is an employment destination for graduates, an Honours degree is an asset for teaching at HE level but is only the starting point. The MA and PhD degrees along with the National Eligibility Test (NET) administered

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 109

65% 67%

improve my English writing skills 41%

improve my English speaking skills acquire proficiency in translating and interpreting

63%

43% 47% 45% 45%

study English language and linguistics

47% 52%

study creative writing

43% 48%

improve my English reading skills

study the great literatures of the world

63%

31%

study Indian literature and culture

31% 29%

improve my English listening skills study the theory of literature/ culture or critical theory

51%

47% 57%

26%

study British and American literature

27%

be informed about English-speaking cultures generally

46%

26% 32% 0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Honours

Not Honours

Figure 6.8  Initial expectations: only ‘true’ for Honours and not-Honours.

by the University Grants Commission (UGC) are essential. For school teaching a Bachelor of Education qualification is mandatory and thus it is entirely possible for not-Honours students to qualify for school and HE teaching positions once they fulfil additional criteria. For expectations related to literary matters such as studying ‘great literatures of the world’ or ‘critical theory’, Honours percentages are higher – which is only to be expected. Here ES seems to be an instrumental, worldly acquisition for

110  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova 70% 64% 60%

60%

50%

40%

30% 22% 20% 14% 9%

10%

13%

8% 4%

2%

6%

0% Honours

Not Honours

My expectations were fully met My expectations were somewhat met My expectations were not met at all The programme changed my expectations Unable to judge

Figure 6.9  Expectations fulfilment.

not-Honours students and a literary, critical one for Honours ones, although this dichotomy is not entirely sustained if one considers categories of improving skills in writing, reading, translation and interpretation. These skills cut across knowledge areas that are not primarily associated with the conventional Honours curriculum focused on literary study and critical theory, and may be deployed in different spheres of employment after university. The figure below (Figure 6.10) is a presentation of a component analysis of the entire sample of respondents on the questions about expectations. All separately listed expectations in the survey in fact fall into three major groups of correlation

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 111

Component 2 (19% of Variance)

d b

c

a

e

l h f

i

j

g

k

Component 1 (20% of Variance) k. I expected to study the great literatures of the world Component 1 (20% of Variance)

j. I expected to study the theory of literature/culture or critical theory i. I expected to study British and American literature g. I expected to study Indian literature and culture d. I expected to improve my English reading skills

Component 2 (19% of Variance)

b. I expected to improve my English listening skills c. I expected to improve my English writing skills a. I expected to improve my English speaking skills f. I expected to study English language and linguistics

Component 3 (15% of Variance)

e. I expected to acquire proficiency in translating and interpreting h. I expected to be informed about English-speaking cultures generally l. I expected to study creative writing

Figure 6.10  Expectations: principal component analysis.

according to response given and the intensity of this response (on a scale from –3 to 3). The ‘literature expectations’ form a coherent group from the perspective of students, i.e. if a person has indicated one of the k, j, i, g group s/he is more likely to have indicated the others in this same group with a similar intensity. Based on the responses of the entire cohort (both Honours and not-Honours), the portfolio of 12 separate expectations falls into three components: component 1 – the study of literature (of whichever geopolitical location); component 2 – the study of language skills/competences; and component 3 – the study of linguistics, translation and creative writing put together (some of which have been recently introduced). The third category also contains, for the figure above, all the responses of ‘I am not sure’ / ‘Unable to judge’. If the indecisive responses are excluded, only half of the responses are accounted for but the groupings of expectations remain the same. Then if a regressive analysis is done, with regard to Question 14 of the survey (‘Were those expectations met?’, see Figure 6.9) it is component 1, the expectation ‘to study literatures’, which is most fully met irrespective of whether respondents were enrolled in Honours or not-Honours programmes/courses.

112  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova Understandably there are overlaps between expectations, fulfilment of expectations, and interests. Figure 6.11 gives the breakdown between ‘true’ and ‘somewhat true’ for the range of academic interests of ES students for all responses received; and Figure 6.12 gives the breakdown between Honours and not-Honours students who answer ‘true’ for each interest. While in Figure 6.12 there are obvious divergences in categories such as ‘literature in English’ (73–53%) and ‘world literatures’ (60–32%), attributable to course content, there are also indicative convergences in interests. ‘The practice of communication’, ‘creative writing’, ‘the media and journalism’, ‘education/ teaching/pedagogy’, ‘translation theory and practice’, and ‘the system of language’ are academic interests where the Honours and not-Honours gap varies from 2% to 8% (i.e. is not a significant gap). Speculatively, the convergent interests are in areas which are likely to increase employment opportunities for ES students after graduation. In response to the statement ‘My English courses definitely improved my employment prospects’ 32.6% said it was ‘somewhat true’

62%

lliterature in English

26%

68%

the practice of communication

19%

57%

creative writing

26%

relations between language and society

46%

popular culture

44%

33%

the media and journalism

46%

30%

the system of language

35%

36%

36%

45%

world literatures education/teaching/pedagogy

27%

49%

21%

translation theory and practice

34%

comparative literature

30%

35%

literature in translation

33%

32%

philosophy

34%

29%

history

25%

politics

23%

26% 28% 25%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% True for me

Somewhat true for me

Figure 6.11  Interests, all respondents: ‘true’ and ‘somewhat true’.

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 113

literature in English

73%

53%

67% 69%

the practice of communication 58% 56%

creative writing relations between language and society

41%

popular culture

40%

the media and journalism

50%

44%

50%

37% 35%

the system of language world literatures

60%

32%

education/teaching/ pedagogy

45%

53%

34% 35%

translation theory and practice comparative literature

26%

literature in translation

28%

philosophy

24%

history

22%

34% 39% 36%

28%

23% 23%

politics 0%

52%

10%

20%

30% Honours

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Not Honours

Figure 6.12  Interests, Honours and not-Honours: only ‘true’.

and 45.8% ‘true’ in DU and 33.2% and 44.9% overall. Interestingly, a significant number said they had no academic interests in philosophy (36.6%), history (43.6%), and politics (47.8%). It is possible that such disinterest is emblematic of a larger disengagement from the political except when it is sensationally visible (as in the 2014 national elections) or discomfiting (as in the youth-led protests against the December 2013 rape case in Delhi). A 2009 survey of attitudes amongst Indian youth showed that levels of interest in politics were rather low (though comparatively higher than in developed countries): whereas 81% considered HE as very or somewhat important, only 46% regarded interest in politics as very or somewhat important (the results were based on 4999 respondents,

114  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova DeSouza, Kumar, Shastri, eds. 2009, p. 137). Evidently HE is seen as a means to economic and social betterment irrespective of political awareness or involvement. This disjunction is disappointingly but not surprisingly reflected at a micro level in our survey of ES students. The 2009 Indian Youth survey delved further into conceptions of the political, in ways which clarify the HE/politics relationship. 69% strongly agreed on ‘citizens’ duty to vote during elections’ and yet an almost equal majority, 66%, agreed that ‘in India power rests with few people’. Further, 43% strongly agreed and 29% somewhat agreed that ‘politicians do not care about people like the respondent’ (DeSouza et al., 2009, p. 148/p. 147). That electoral democracy might fail to equalize power and the implications of the discrepancy is a factor the survey throws open to discussion, particularly when it asks about ‘Frequency of participating in protest, demonstration, struggle or movement’: 78% (n=3925) said they had ‘Never’ participated (p. 135). While there is an awareness that ‘power rests with few people’ there is no concomitant desire to change that reality.

Curricula and pedagogy A majority of respondents defined their English courses as dealing with literary studies (37.5% and 39.2% for DU and overall respectively) and culture studies (20.5% and 15.6%). There are some predictable differences in the descriptions of ES courses studied between Honours and not-Honours students (Figure 6.13). The overwhelming literary emphasis in DU undergraduate English Honours programmes explains the distinction in descriptors, although the teaching and analysis of literary texts do take into account critical insights best associated with culture studies. The equivalent Honours programme at Ambedkar University (AUD) draws a clear relationship between literary and culture studies in its prospectus: The courses are designed to familiarise students with the major genres of literature in English such as epic, theatre, poetry, novel, novella, short story, non-fiction, song, lyric and cinema. Along with giving students a thorough grounding in the study of literature, the courses also introduce students to the ways in which literature converses with other art forms and other areas of study within the domain of social science and humanities. (Ambedkar University 2014) Here, students are required to take three Foundation Courses in Semester I: ‘English for Academic Purposes’, ‘English Proficiency Course’, and ‘Youth, Society and Literature’, and then move on to elective Discipline Courses ranging from ‘Literature of the Renaissance’ and ‘Literature and Cinema’ to ‘Blues, Jazz and Literature’ and ‘Victorian Poetry through Painting’. There is one course on ‘Introduction to Cultural Studies’ in Semester IV. The course offerings are representative of a swathe of literary and culture studies rubrics in undergraduate programmes the world over. This programme is relatively new and opens possibilities for ES beyond the conventional emphasis on literary texts and literary criticism found in older Indian universities. 8.3% of those surveyed were from

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 115 50% 46%

40% 34% 30%

22% 20%

18%

17% 12%

14%

13% 9%

10% 5%

5% 2% 2%

1% 0% Honours

Not Honours

a course in literary studies culture studies a programme in language and linguistics the study of the British or American spheres a study of the Indian context a study of different English-speaking contexts other

Figure 6.13  Course descriptions.

AUD and while it is too soon to judge the impact of this programme, one 1st Year student responded to the open question ‘How have your English courses contributed to your development as a person?’ with: As a grown up adult, the English course has helped in an overall personality development because of the speaking, listening and writing skills being polished due to this course. Now, I am prepared to analyse a topic critically, discuss it more openly; debate about it. This course basically has developed my conscience and enabled me to express my thoughts upon a subject easily. Of course, not all respondents were so self-assured. Another replied: ‘It hasn’t done much good in my development as a person. Instead, it hampered my development a little and created few problems by demonstrating me as if I am not good at all in English.’ Some of the study practices addressed in the survey may have a bearing on such responses.

116  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova Figure 6.14 on study practices indicates that fairly low percentages of both Honours and not-Honours students report communicating only in English in ES classrooms, whereas doing academic reading only in English are 42 and 36 percentage points higher. 8.9% said they communicated mostly in Hindi for ES courses. 20% of not-Honours students read their course materials equally in English and Hindi and 5% only in Hindi. Another 4.4% accessed course readings in English and another Indian language. These indications of practices, somewhat contrary to the reported 100% competence in English, might be related to firstgeneration learners (in terms of both English and university access) who find classroom communication only in English challenging. For an education system with a demanding examinations and testing regime, it is somewhat surprising that 45.8% disagreed with the statement ‘There are too many graded sit-down examinations’ (see Figure 6.15 below). Along with internal assessment and end-of-semester examinations in DU, for example, there is a fair bit of pressure to perform at undergraduate examinations. AUD stresses continuous assessment but the other universities surveyed do not and most students seem to feel that examinations are the only mode of judging progress – 44.5% agreed and 18% strongly agreed. Responses related to tests for reading/writing skills, listening and speaking, and language and communication are also indicated in Figure 6.15. Given the lecture-and-sit-down-examination format that is usually followed, it is to be expected that listening and speaking skills are not adequately tested; however, most students seem satisfied about the evaluation of ‘competence in language and communication’. The positive numbers for ‘understanding of concepts and theories’ and ‘assessing range of knowledge’ speak well of the courses and their teaching. However, respondents acknowledge low levels of awareness when it comes to academic matters not immediately related to their programmes, as Figure 6.16 demonstrates. Communication

Readings

90%

100%

80%

90%

70%

80% 51%

60%

48%

45%

50%

40%

40%

40%

30%

30%

20% 10%

76%

70%

60% 50%

87%

13%

20% 10%

4%

0%

20% 9%

5%

4%

0% Honours Only EN Mostly Hindi

Figure 6.14  Study practices.

Not Honours Mostly EN

Honours Only EN

Not Honours EN and Hindi

EN and another India

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 117

too many sit-down examinations

8%

too many coursework submissions

7%

too much testing before the exam

6%

ETP is good for assessing listening & speaking skills

10%

ETP is good for evaluating overall competence in L & C

12%

ETP evaluates understanding of concepts & theories

14%

ETP is good for assessing range of knowledge

13%

feedback I get is adequate

14%

0%

6%

39%

18%

ETP enables me to have clear sense of my progress

3% 13% 7%

62%

15%

ETP is good for evaluating reading & writing skills

6%

50%

6%

32%

4%

39%

9%

40%

5%

46%

13%

28%

23%

9%

49%

12%

34%

21%

7%

52%

10%

55% 8%

44%

6%

17%

5%

58%

7%

7% 4%

16%

22%

7%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Strongly agree Disagree

Agree

Unable to judge

Strongly Disagree

Figure 6.15 Examination/testing. (ETP = Exam/testing process; L = Language; C = Communication).

Academics in Delhi are apt to feel disheartened about students’ inattentiveness to research by their tutors/lecturers indicated here, but it is understandable given their heavy workloads. The figure (48%) for complete ignorance about research elsewhere in India is more striking, and bolsters the impression of an overly instrumental approach to ES. Responses to an additional set of queries, however, mitigate disquiet on this score to some extent – shown in Figure 6.17. The ‘to some extent’ and ‘sometimes’ responses suggest that, despite workload pressures and paucity of library provisions, students do make an effort to acquaint themselves with a broader field of ES than their courses. Library resources vary amongst the institutions surveyed and many do not offer access to electronic resources, especially for undergraduates. These institutions are often poorly equipped for teaching languages, with few English Department teachers qualified in the various aspects of English Language Teaching (ELT) – though courses such as English at the Workplace (Sanyal and Varma eds. 2007, a text prescribed in DU for 2nd Year BA Programme students) are delivered. A DU 1st Year Honours student’s response to the open question ‘What do you think are the key issues that need to be addressed in English Studies?’ is expressive of familiar frustrations: ‘Limited to a few novels only; Not enough preparatory leaves given before semester exams; Advanced technology like projectors and computers are still not used; Limited study material or notes provided whereas too much is

80% 64%

61%

60%

52% 45% 40%

35% 29%

20% 4%

7%

3%

0% To what extent are you aware of the current research interests of your tutors / lecturers?

To what extent are you aware of current research interests of academics in other institutions in India?

80%

To what extent are you aware of issues and debates related to English Studies and education, locally and internationally?

61%

60%

60% 48% 48%

40%

35%

31%

20% 9% 4%

4%

0% To what extent are you aware of the current research interests of your tutors / lecturers?

Not aware at all

To what extent are you aware of current research interests of academics in other institutions in India? To some extent

To what extent are you aware of issues and debates related to English Studies and education, locally and internationally? To a great extent

Figure 6.16  Awareness of ES generally (DU response above, all respondents below).

80%

64% 60%

40%

55%

55%

55%

39% 34%

33%

28% 20% 6%

12%

11%

8%

0% Reading scholarly publications by your tutors / lecturers?

Reading scholarly publications by academics in India besides the ones assigned in your courses?

Reading scholarly publications by academics outside India besides the ones assigned in your courses?

Visiting websites of other institutions / departments offering programmes similar to yours?

80%

60%

60% 53%

40%

55%

53%

39%

36%

33%

30% 20% 11%

10%

8%

11%

0% Reading scholarly publications by your tutors / lecturers?

Reading scholarly publications by academics in India besides the ones assigned in your courses? Never

Reading scholarly publications by academics outside India besides the ones assigned in your courses?

Sometimes

Visiting websites of other institutions / departments offering programmes similar to yours?

Regularly

Figure 6.17  Awareness of scholarship (DU response above, all respondents below).

120  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova asked in the question paper’. As mentioned earlier, the difficulties are particularly acute for first-generation learners and those from disadvantaged backgrounds who find that access to HE does not necessarily translate into knowledge or skills.

Skills As Figure 6.18 below shows, respondents felt they had acquired certain transferable skills such as leadership and management capabilities, decision making, problem solving, and ability to work in groups. More specific to English, 67.9% claimed ‘good’ and ‘very good’ skills in speaking (18.8% ‘excellent’) and 69.4% for writing (18.3% ‘excellent’). Of interest here are the ways in which students conceptualize skills outside the ambit of speaking and writing, such as ‘understanding and appreciating cultural differences’, engaging ‘with current social and political issues’, or recognizing ‘responsibilities and rights as a citizen’. The 2009 survey (DeSouza et al.) mentioned earlier highlighted problems with understanding of citizenship and political responsibilities. However, it seems clear that our respondents do not regard ES as a ‘soft’ subject; for them ES programmes serve partially to bolster a sense of self-worth and partially to acquire ideas and abilities which will bear upon their prospects. When the responses for skills acquired are compared to responses to the question ‘What skills do you need to have?’ the picture becomes rather more complex, as Figure 6.19 illustrates. The only skill asserted with confidence is the ability to speak in one’s mother tongue which is to be expected since English is a second or third language for most students and many won’t have attended English-medium schools. The figure could also be seen as indicative for prioritizing of skills, highlighting attributes which are perceived to be more valuable than others. Thus, 9, 11, 12, and 14 are relatively low priority (predictably including engagement with social and political issues), although using a language other than English and the mother tongue is perceived as a greater need than an attained skill. For 2 and 4, i.e. speaking/writing effectively in English, there’s a stronger perceived need than there is a sense of being adequately skilled already, which is a more nuanced self-assessment than suggested in Figure 6.5. ‘Using management/leadership capabilities’ (19) is on par with ‘working effectively with modern technology, especially computers’ (15) and ‘recognizing responsibilities and rights as a citizen’ (20), along with 5, 6, 16 related to information processing, problem solving, and decision making. Within the contested and complex language politics of India our respondents seem to iterate possibly disturbing ideations of the nation as defined against its others in linguistic terms, wherein English is necessary but its ‘value’ is constrained within the managerial sphere – implying a ‘value’ that is untainted by such instrumentalities in non-English languages.

Career goals, employment Figures 6.20 and 6.21 below present the respondents’ career goals and desired sectors of employment after graduation.

2% 2% 4%

Locating information needed to help make decisions

Working effectively with modem technology, especially computers

Figure 6.18  Skills students feel they have already.

Writing effectively in your mother tongue 0%

19%

21%

16%

18%

Poor

10%

18%

23%

17%

20%

12% 9%

17% 16%

12%

9%

17% 15%

0% 12%

2%

Speaking effectively in your mother tongue

Writing effectively in English

2% 1%

Speaking effectively in English

Defining and solving problems

Critically analyzing written information

1% 1%

Working and/or learning independently

3%

Working in a team/cooperatively in a group

Using a language apart from English and your mother tongue

3%

7%

Understanding and appreciating literature and/or the fine arts

7%

Being able to conduct research effectively within your discipline

2%

Understanding and applying concepts of Literary/Linguistic/Cultural Theory

Understanding and appreciating cultural differences

8%

2%

Using knowledge outside the area of English studies

Using knowledge, ideas from the area of English studies

Being able to engage with current social and political issues

6%

Using management/ leadership capabilities

3% 1%

Understanding of teaching and education methodology

Recognizing your responsibilities and rights as a citizen

28%

20%

27%

30%

24%

19%

20%

Fair

30%

37%

36%

42%

24%

42%

34%

Good

40%

41%

35%

39%

35%

42%

42%

34%

41%

41%

31%

34%

60%

29%

Very Good

39%

35%

29%

50%

33%

32%

32%

27%

31%

27%

Excellent

70%

9%

80%

32%

14%

16%

17%

25%

22%

25%

20%

30%

30%

26%

24%

30%

27%

24%

26%

Can not say

90%

15%

18%

19%

9%

13%

12%

9%

4%

2%

3%

4%

4%

5%

6%

4%

2%

3%

1%

3%

6%

3%

3% 100%

1%

1%

0%

3%

8% 1%

5%

5%

11%

9%

10%

20%

10%

9%

9%

11%

10%

16%

122  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova 4.0

2 3.8

7 18

19 6

3.6 21 12 3.4

Need have

14

9

1

8

5 10 16

4

3

20 15

17

13

11

3.2

3.0

2.8

2.6 2.6

2.8

3.0

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4.0

Have now

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Writing effectively in your mother tongue Writing effectively in English Speaking effectively in your mother tongue Speaking effectively in English Critically analyzing written information Defining and solving problems Working and/or learning independently Working in a team/cooperatively in a group Using a language apart from English and your mother tongue 10. Understanding and appreciating literature and/or the fine arts 11. Understanding and applying concepts of Literary/Linguistic/Cultural Theory 12. Being able to conduct research effectively within your discipline

13. Understanding and appreciating cultural differences 14. Being able to engage with current social and political issues 15. Working effectively with modern technology, especially computers 16. Locating information needed to help make decisions or solve problems 17. Using knowledge, ideas, or perspectives gained from the area of English studies 18. Using knowledge, ideas, or perspectives gained outside the area of English studies 19. Using management/leadership capabilities 20. Recognizing your responsibilities and rights as a citizen 21. Understanding of teaching and education methodology

Figure 6.19  Skills, “have now” and “need to have”.

The relative distance of a specific goal from the low left-hand corner indicates priority (high frequency of responses), i.e. ‘management’ is a top priority career goal. If a certain goal is positioned on the diagonal line, then this means that

40%

Management

Teaching Selfemployment

35%

Media and publishing

Research and development After

Civil service

30%

Translation and interpreting 25%

20% 20%

25%

30% Before

35%

40%

Figure 6.20  Career goals. 40% Indian institutions

35% 30%

HE

After

25%

Self-employed Foreign gov.

20%

Mass-media

Indian Industry 15%

Non-profit

10%

Universityaffiliated research Non-Indian Industy

Secondary school 5%

Local admin.

0% 0%

School Other edu. 5%

Figure 6.21  Employer.

10%

15%

20% Before

25%

30%

35%

40%

124  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova its relative value has not changed from the moment they began their studies (indicated with ‘before’) to the moment at which they are now in their studies (indicated with ‘after’). If a goal drops below the diagonal line then it was more strongly desired when they entered the programme but is lower now. Similarly, if a goal appears above the diagonal line, it means that now they place a higher value on it than when they enrolled. So, though relatively low on a priority scale, ‘research and development’ has risen most significantly as a desired career goal in the course of their studies. In the prevailing social and economic climate it is unsurprising that management is the most desired career goal. Notably, teaching as a career goal seems to increase in desirability after exposure to ES programmes/courses. Teaching, at whatever level, is not a well-remunerated profession and does not have the social and cultural cachet that management or the civil services do. The relatively high position of ‘teaching’ then might have something to do with the relatively high position of ‘HE’ as a prospective employer (even if that dropped in the course of study). In other words, ‘teaching’ as a positively viewed prospective career is associated more with teaching at HE institutions than at school-level (which is low priority). One explanation for the relatively high position of teaching is its vestigial symbolic capital in India. A 2013 survey by Pearson of 1292 school and 1970 HE teachers noted that ‘Most of the teachers believe that they are respected in the society (83%) . . . however, a large number (79%) also perceive the near absence of platforms that recognize them in India’ (Pearson 2013, p. 5, bold in original). The self-belief regarding societal respect fits in well with our cohort and their perceptions of teaching as a profession. HE managers often regard teachers as obstructive in economically salient initiatives (see Chapter 4, general comments). In this context the significant rise in interest in ‘research and development’ is indicative of learning and career outcomes that move beyond the most economically attractive. The options here are however limited. To our respondents, ‘research and development’ is likely to be associated with HE and specialized institutions such as the Indian Council for Historical Research or the Tata Institute for Social Sciences, which cater to advanced academic constituencies. Traditional universities provide some space for Humanities research, though with severe funding constraints. That our cohort considered ‘media and publishing’ as a high priority prior to embarking on ES and dropped aspirations in that direction thereafter is contrary to anecdotal evidence – the number of ES graduates finding employment in print and electronic media and publishing appears to be quite significant (see Thomas Abraham’s observations in Chapter 4). The definitional uncertainties about ES charted in Figure 6.13 earlier might have a bearing on changes in aspirations among respondents. While ES students embarking on their study had a range of aspirations from teaching in schools (low priority) to working in industry and mass media and HE, they seemed to have jettisoned those options or to be unclear about futures after engaging with their studies. Barring employment in education and the non-profit sector, which held steady in their preferences and priorities, there was no other field that ES students felt inclined, inspired, or qualified to join.

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 125

The ‘value’ of English Studies Part III of the survey questionnaire ended with an open question: How have your English courses contributed (positively or negatively) to your development as a person? E.g., has it influenced your ideological and cultural perspectives, extra-curricular / extra-professional interests, social interactions, sense of identity. Please explain briefly. As anticipated, responses were varied but certain patterns were apparent and may help us to configure the ‘value’ that respondents perceived as inherent in/gained from their ES courses, beyond the predictable skills and career prospects. ‘What do you think are the key issues that need to be addressed in English Studies?’ in India and internationally was another open question which elicited responses related to the idea of ‘value’. Apart from skills and employment prospects, ‘value’ was perceived as related to rights, identity, empowerment (sometimes transferable to the employment market), and morals or ethics. Most respondents – Honours and not-Honours – spoke of ‘value’ in terms of skills. Characteristic of many responses, a 3rd Year Honours student at Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) wrote: (A) My English course has contributed in a positive manner. I have gained confidence in speaking and writing skills in the language. At some extent it has improved my reading skills and indulged me into a habit of reading. It has made me familiar with other cultures and their literatures. Another 3rd Year not-Honours student of Kamla Nehru College (KNC) stated: (B) Yes, my English course has contributed in my development as a person as it has provided me with a vast area of English, i.e. Business English which is very productive in today’s time. (Non-standard and erroneous expression has been retained in quotations here.) While (A) stresses reading, writing, speaking skills s/he attempts to think about the ways in which literary studies may acculturate one to differences. In contrast (B) is clear that self-development is linked to ‘Business English’ in terms of productivity. Many respondents thought of ES in terms of identity and empowerment. A 2nd Year Honours student at JMI wrote: (C) English courses study has helped me broaden my academic horizons, made me more aware of myself and my surroundings, helped me articulate things and assert my social identity. Indraprastha College for Women, DU (IP) elicited the most numerous answers related to notions of ES as cultural and social capital — those cited are from Honours programmes.

126  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova (D) [. . .] Moreover, it encouraged me to stand for my rights, for the rights of my own sex. English literature has been the most empowering tool for me. I had always wanted to pursue this course and I am thankful to God, my parents for directing me in this. I am very happy. J (2nd Year) (E) My English course has definitely contributed positively in my personality development. Honestly, it was not my first choice but I don’t regret taking up the course. It has completely changed my ideals and notions and I have clearly grown into someone who is more confident and determined. My love for books has only increased due to the course and I am happy about that. (2nd Year) (F) Yes English, rather being a Literature student has greatly affected my ideological and cultural perspectives, and especially drawn my attention to gender issues. (3rd Year) (G) One of the best decisions I have made is joining this English course. It has sharpened my sense of right and wrong. It helped me understand my goal in life better and wake me up from my slumber of ignorance. (3rd Year) It is interesting that IP respondents generally didn’t refer directly to skills but to gendered identity and awareness of social and ethical contradictions. Demographically, most IP students are from the middle to upper-middle classes. Its English Department is committed to scholarly and pedagogic excellence, and classes are relatively small allowing for closer interaction between teachers and students. Founded by the Cambridge Brotherhood in 1881, St Stephen’s College (SSC) has a similar profile, but is co-educational and more conscious of its ‘traditions’ and status in the orbit of Indian HE. Some of the responses, however, were less enthusiastic than those from IP. (H) The contribution that English has made to my life is largely negative as it has become increasingly difficult to lead a normal life without excessively questioning norms, traditions and values. Certain books in the course influence my mood and since these have to be read, I am left without a choice. (3rd Year) (I) English literature is a wonderful subject. It brings together history, politics, and sociology together thus broadening one’s worldview. I always loved to read. But somehow after these three years, my passion for reading has died down. Reading seems laborious, especially course books. I still love to read but I prefer books outside of my course. Therefore, I don’t even get good grades. I feel teachers want me to write in a certain way and I feel nauseated. I need space, air. I don’t wish to continue studying English. (3rd Year)

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 127 (J) I think my English courses have opened up my mind to a great extent, especially as I studied in a CBSE [Central Board of Secondary Education] school and the English course was negligible. It does also influence my ideological and social perspectives, mostly because you are encouraged to think more about issues. However, I do think some areas of literary studies are neglected, especially the study of linguistics. The course is sometimes too exam-oriented which completely destroys original thought because you are focused to study for the standard topics that might come up in the examinations. It would also have been helpful to have a course in academic writing in the first year, because we were never actually taught to write. [Underlined in the original] (3rd Year) (K) While I enjoyed the three years that I studied Literature very much – I have begun to find it a little self indulgent. I would like to shift to a subject that is more directly people-centric and grounded in reality. (3rd Year) There seems to be an expectation that ES, particularly literature – and all responses here are from Honours students – ought to alleviate burdens rather than lead to too much questioning and should be more immediately grounded in the students’ habitus. A fairly standard response is that ES is not geared toward use value, particularly since thought and analysis are seen to be without such value. (J)’s response is interesting because s/he is aware of the artificial disjunction between literary studies and linguistics and aware that academic writing is a skill that needs to be taught. Respondents especially in not-Honours ES courses expressed anxieties related to skills acquired and their usefulness in real-world situations. Spoken English is evidently a particularly sensitive point. A not-Honours student at KNC wrote: (L) More importance should be given to basic English speaking because I have many friends who jumble up tenses and do not communicate well. (3rd Year) Another not-Honours respondent in Bharti College (BC) was conscious of inadequacies in a social sense: (M) We are not able to speak or talk in English, the reason it is not taken as a language, but as a subject, and students are forced or laughed by other peer group for wrong grammar used that should be taken care of and fine should be imposed not on speaking wrong English but for being laughed at. (3rd Year) An Honours student in Deshbandhu College (DC) was equally distressed:

128  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova (N) Somehow, I believe that the course has only caused me demotivation. I was far better off in school days! Well that could probably be because of my bend towards stuff other than Literature studies which has a misleading title English (H)!!! While (L) might be disingenuous in attributing grammatical errors to ‘friends’ (M) and (N) articulate both the immense pressure to learn English (here linguistic capability seems paramount), the difficulty of doing so, and the disappointments that arise. (N) expresses a fairly common disillusionment with English Honours courses – having hoped for language training s/he finds that literature is the focus and of little use value. The idea of moral ‘value’ came up in responses to the question on key issues in ES in India and internationally. Some stressed the need to have more Indian authors, such as this not-Honours respondent from Indraprastha University, Delhi: (O) Writing standards of Indian authors is good and their texts should be given chance rather following western texts blindly. (1st Year) Honours respondents from Rajdhani College (RC) wrote: (P) Studies should be more moralistic. (1st Year) (Q) Moral issues and also some of the major issues such as corruption, black money etc. Praising the Indian society. (3rd Year) (P) and (Q) are variants of (H), although their focus is more obviously on ‘moral issues’ and an unease arising from the interrogation of ‘everyday norms’ related to gender, class, or caste. It appears that what students at an elite women’s college such as IP find liberating, their counterparts in a middle-of-the-road institution find threatening and destabilizing. (P)’s statement can also be read in contexts of ‘value education’ in school and university education in India which stress the need to inculcate innate, timeless ‘Indian values’ that are superior and separate from corrupting ‘Western values’ (see documents and analyses on the Indian Value Education website and Chapter 4, footnote 4, p. 75 above). In the context of ES the valorisation of ‘Indian values’ is linked to a kind of linguistic chauvinism and anxiety. Discussions during the workshops recorded in Chapters 3 and 4 touched upon the familiar conviction that English is ideologically suspect as a colonial inheritance which perpetuates linguistic servitude, and the concomitant conviction that Indian languages – Hindi in particular – are outside the circuits of ideology and social inequities. For instance, Harish Trivedi observed in the workshop documented in Chapter 4 (see p. 69 above): If there is a great demand for English from students at present it reflects the academic establishment’s success in selling them a ‘false dream’ which serves the vested interests of the establishment. ‘We’ in ES are in the embrace of this false consciousness and hence tend to confuse the discipline with a liberal enterprise.

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 129 The various intersections between ES and neo-liberal economic policies are a much researched issue, but the anxiety expressed by Trivedi – and in more visceral forms by (P) and (Q) above – gesture toward more ‘authentic’, ‘moral’, and less problematic worlds than the ones revealed by ES and its complicated interactions with other Indian languages and literatures. As we have seen, not all respondents were so troubled and it is worth concluding this section with a different response from RC: (R) Yes, to a large extent, literature has affected me. [. . .] Literature moves me, shakes me, makes me cry, makes me laugh, de-stresses me, sometimes gives me goosebumps too. I am emotionally involved into it & completely enjoying studying it. I do not know where this course would lead me, but I know I am having the time of my life being in this course which would not have been the case in any other course. One of the many influences of literature on me, I’ve become a little more of a feminist! And it gives me food for thought and new ideas to think and act upon. What I am missing in my life is my involvement in extra-curricular/ extra professional interests & social interactions with like-minded people in regard of literature. (2nd Year) In concluding this chapter on the 2012 survey of ES students, the only other similar survey that was published two decades earlier can be usefully revisited. This appeared amidst the crisis debates discussed in Chapter 1, in Rajeswari Sunder Rajan’s edited volume The Lie of the Land (1992). Yasmeen Lukmani, formerly Professor, Department of English, University of Bombay, conducted and analysed it, with responses from fifty English literature students. All the students were in the third year of their BA, from six colleges within the University of Bombay, falling within Greater Bombay, [. . .] The total number of colleges offering English literature courses at final year BA within Greater Bombay is 23, so the sample consisted of 25 per cent of the relevant colleges. (Lukmani 1992, p. 160) Lukmani’s report focused on the integrative-instrumental aspect of English literary studies and attempted to determine the ‘attitudinal orientation towards studying English’ (the title of her essay). While her sample was considerably smaller than the current survey and limited to colleges in one university it offered an interesting set of conclusions. Lukmani found that: 1

‘The need for English is so overwhelming that, regardless of socio-economic status, exposure to English in their homes, or the marks they got in their total academic or English performance, they are oriented to study English’;

130  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova 2 the primary driver for English literary studies was ‘it will improve my competence in the English language’; and 3 in comparison with her earlier study of Marathi-medium school-leaving students (conducted in 1972), language background is irrelevant ‘in determining students’ orientation to learn English’. (Lukmani 1992, pp. 167–8). These observations arising from data collected in the early 1970s and late 1980s resonate with the dominance of the Arts and Humanities in DU two decades later (see Table 5.8). They also point to a degree of affinity between pre-economic liberalization (i.e. pre-1991) and ongoing contexts and instrumentalist drives in ES. The disillusion expressed by (M) and (N) in our survey would perhaps be echoed by Lukmani’s respondents who also believed that a course in English literature ‘would improve my competence in the English language’. Following from her second conclusion, Lukmani observed that: They [curriculum-developers at Indian universities] have continued to treat English literature as a component of a humanities programme, ideally leading to students’ cultural enrichment, adding to their knowledge of life, and inculcating in them the ‘right’ values – which are its professed functions in the West. But Indian students, as this study shows, tend to remain aloof from involvement in the representation of life in English texts. Their interest is in the medium rather than the message, the language rather than the culture, and the benefit they hope to attain is proficiency in English rather than integration into a western cultural ethos. (Lukmani 1992, p. 170) Possibly applicable for the early 1990s when English Honours Literature syllabi were largely Anglophone in focus and orientation, Lukmani’s observations seem to reiterate a nativist argument as Trivedi above and perceive ES purely in instrumental terms outside the frame of the humanities. Whether the stated or implied aims and ends of such syllabi were ‘integration into a western cultural ethos’ is debatable and in any case the question sets up a false dichotomy between hermetically defined ‘western’ and ‘Indian’ cultures. The idea that literary studies is largely/purely a means to language acquisition is also problematic since her questionnaire did not pose questions related to cultural and ideological awareness and personal development and thus did not elicit the kind of feedback that the 2012 survey in Delhi does – often revealing a more nuanced relationship between the two. Lukmani’s study with its limitations of sampling and conclusions is nevertheless a valuable signpost from a different locus and time and highlights the necessity of more extensive surveys in ES across different regions and institutions in India. The present survey is a small beginning to this process of mapping quantitatively and qualitatively the contours of ES in contemporary India.

Analysis of undergraduate survey in Delhi 131

Notes 1 See Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD) directive on OBC Expansion at http://www.academics-india.com/MHRD_directives.htm for details. 2 A Right to Information (RTI) application filed by a DU Academic Council Member, Dr Amitav Chakraborty, in March 2014 revealed that DU had bought 62,600 laptops ‘under a tagged grant exclusively meant for expansion of physical infrastructure in colleges and departments to cater to the increased student-intake following the OBC Reservations. The cost of each laptop as displayed on the boxes was Rs. 27565.50.’ (DTF, http://dtf-du.org/2014/04/29/press-release-29-4-2014/) This was subsequently taken up by the media. See ‘DU diverts Rs 172 crore from OBC expansion fund to buy 62,600 LAPTOPS,’ April 29, 2014, The Daily Mail, http:// www.dailymail.co.uk/indiahome/indianews/article-2616219/DU-diverts-Rs172-crore-OBC-expansion-fund-buy-62-600-LAPTOPS.html#ixzz360lOTc00; ‘DU used OBC grant to buy laptops, reveals RTI reply,’ April 29, 2014, Deccan Herald, http://www.deccanherald.com/content/403174/du-used-obc-grant-buy. html; ‘OBC funds spent on FYUP laptops got from OBC grants,’ April 30, 2014, Times of India, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/OBC-fundsspent-on-FYUP-laptops-got-from-OBC-grants/articleshow/34399532.cms. 3 See http://www.kmcollege.ac.in/fees-dues.jsp; http://www.jmc.ac.in/admissions/ college-fees/; http://www.ststephens.edu/admissions/St%20Stephens%20College% 20Prospectus%202014.pdf; http://jmi.ac.in/english/courses-name/BAHonsEnglish; http://aud.ac.in/upload/BA%20ENG.pdf respectively.

References Academic Forum for Social Justice (2011). DU Admissions Data 2010–11. Ambedkar University (2014). School of Undergraduate Studies (SUS), BA Honours in English. http://aud.ac.in/upload/BA%20ENG.pdf Delhi Teachers’ Forum (DTF) (2014).‘Press Release: 29.4.2014: Misappropriation of Money from OBC Expansion Grant to buy FYUP Laptops; Independent Probe Demanded’. Delhi University. http://dtf-du.org/2014/04/29/pressrelease-29-4-2014/ DeSouza, Peter Ronald, Sanjay Kumar, Sandeep Shastri, eds. (2009). Indian Youth in a Transforming World: Attitudes and Perceptions. New Delhi: Sage Publications. English, James F. (2012). The Global Future of English Studies. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (2010).‘Types of Schools Attended, 2010–11’. http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/aa73eb80486863e7895acfe 83e6e4488/Chapter6.pdf?MOD=AJPERES Indian Value Education: Documents and Analyses (website) (2014). http://indian valueeducation.wordpress.com/ Jamia Millia Islamia (2014). ‘Department of English Programme/Course Fee’. http://jmi.ac.in/english/courses-name/BAHonsEnglish Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi (2014). ‘Fees and Dues’. http://www.kmcol lege.ac.in/fees-dues.jsp; http://www.jmc.ac.in/admissions/college-fees/ Lukmani, Yasmeen (1992). ‘Attitudinal Orientation towards Studying English Literature in India’. In Rajeswari Sunder Rajan, ed. The Lie of the Land: English Literary Studies in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. 156–86. Ministry of Human Resources and Development (MHRD) (2008). Directive on OBC Expansion. http://www.academics-india.com/MHRD_directives.htm

132  Chattarji, Katsarska, and Keskinova Pearson Voice of the Teacher Survey (2013). ‘Always Learning’. http://www.pear sonthankyourteacher.in/download/Pearson-Voice-Teacher-Survey-2013.pdf Sanyal, Mukti and Pramodini Varma, eds. (2007). English at the Workplace I, II. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. St Stephen’s College, Delhi (2014). Prospectus 2014–15: 48. http://www.ststephens. edu/admissions/St%20Stephens%20College%20Prospectus%202014.pdf

Part IV

Comparative perspectives

This page intentionally left blank

7 Management ethos and academic work The view on English Studies from the United Kingdom Richard Allen This chapter aims to broaden the discussion of the future of English Studies (ES) in India by enabling a comparison between the situation in India and the situation in Britain. The logic of such a comparison is twofold. First, not surprisingly the origins and development of universities and of the study of English in India have been heavily influenced by and involved with the study of English in Britain. Wood’s Despatch of 1854 proposed the establishment of universities in India explicitly on the model of London University, itself founded in 1836 (Wood 1854). English language competency was an important element, although Wood urged also the importance of similar competency in a local language. The Universities of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras were founded in 1857; what we know now as the University of London External Programme was established in 1858. The alignment between the Indian system and the British system has been challenged since Independence by the influence of the Soviet system in the 1960s and 1970s, and more recently by the pull of the US system, but the link remains strong. Beyond that it will be argued that pressures coming to bear in Higher Education (HE) in India can be observed in an already developed form in Britain. For example, we can see a well-developed trend in Britain towards increasing vocation focus, symbolized as much as anything by the way responsibility for HE lies – separate from responsibility for schools – in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. The British Government also projects an image of education in the UK in terms of business; it has a brand – Education UK – with a logo that can only be used under licence through the British Council. Setting out funding for 2013/14, the Department mixed contrasting traditional, liberal and more instrumental visions of HE: We value learning for its own sake and for the enormous social, cultural and economic benefits it brings. Through its teaching and research and its creation and exchange of knowledge, higher education supports economic performance and competitiveness and plays a pivotal role in increasing social mobility. (Dept. Business, Innovation & Skills 2013) HE policy in India runs parallel to this. The liberal and instrumental visions, for example, can be seen in the Government of India 11th Five Year Plan: ‘the investment made in higher education in the 1950s and 1960s has given us a strong

136  Allen knowledge base in many fields and contributed significantly to economic development, social progress, and political democracy in independent India’ (Govt. of India, 2008, p.21).

Competing visions Teaching and researching in English in the UK, many feel the same kind of stresses and anxieties described by participants in the workshop reports in Chapters 3 and 4. It is tempting to see things in terms of a utopian narrative whereby teachers and students were once able to join in a free and disinterested study of literature, and research could have its own freedom and momentum – all far from the pressures of ‘economic performance and competitiveness’. The study of English Literature began – the story goes – on the basis of the study of Classical languages and cultures, but has since surpassed them and achieved its own cultural glory; now it is at risk of losing its glory because of philistine government interference. In truth, the story of the study of English in Britain (and in India) has always been a story of the shifting relationship between cultural/aesthetic and worldly pressures. Before English Literature was fully established as a university discipline in Britain, Matthew Arnold wrote in ‘The Study of Poetry’ of 1880: In poetry, as a criticism of life . . . the spirit of the race will find . . . its consolation and stay . . . [which] will be of power in proportion to the power of the criticism of life [contained there] . . . constantly in reading poetry, a sense for the best, the really excellent, and of the strength to be drawn from it, should be present in our minds. (Arnold 1962, pp. 261–2) A reader of the day would surely see in that phrase ‘the spirit of the race’ an allusion to Britain as an imperial power, governing large areas of the world. By implication, to succeed in the study of poetry gives one a set of values that are more social than aesthetic – a certainty of truth, the ability to develop a criticism of life, a sense of the best. The image of the British District Commissioner ruling India with an official document in one hand and a book of poetry in the other might seem a caricature or an imperial leap of faith but the image has truth. From his position within the British educational and cultural establishment Arnold himself would surely have known not just about developments in Britain but of the role English had played in fostering the British interest in India, especially in the colleges founded by the East India Company and the British Government since the 1820s (see Zakir Husain Delhi College, 2014; Presidency University, 2014; see Chapter 1 above). The interacting visions for English can be seen again in the Newbolt Report of 1921 (a year before the founding of the University of Delhi, and again one may reasonably presume a connection between policies in Britain and India.) First, the report speaks strongly of how valuable the study of English Literature can be as a training for business. Newbolt surveyed employers: ‘it was refreshing to find the

Management ethos and academic work 137 teaching of literature advocated as an essential preparation for a business career; yet this was the burden of a large number of the replies we received.’ Employers spoke in ways that eerily presage opinions expressed in the workshop discussions described in Chapter 3: ‘English should be taught through the study of good literature rather than through definite grammar lessons’; ‘Wise guidance in reading we consider the best method to adopt in teaching English’; ‘We think that a great deal of time spent in grammar, spelling, punctuation would be far better used in the study of English literature in its broader aspects’ (Newbolt 1921, p. 130). Later we find Newbolt asserting the value of English in more abstract terms as essential ‘for the purposes of humane culture, which is the highest object of a University’, linking that explicitly now to public duty and imperial service. English will be the main source of culture of the millions of English-speaking men and women in the British Empire and the United States. Hence it will be the duty of the Universities of this country to make due provision for their English Department. (Newbolt 1921, pp. 202, 247) In the 1970s and 1980s competing visions continued to be evident in ES, with the context now more marked than ever. On the one hand, highly developed forms of ‘practical criticism’ and ‘new criticism’ were still very much to the fore. The focus here is ‘inward’, intent on deep technical analysis of texts.1 On the other hand, Marxist structuralist, feminist and queer studies and post-colonial critical voices insist on literature engaging with social, economic and political issues. The contending forces are neatly expressed in an appreciation of the work of Edward Said by Michael Wood: [Said] wrote that contemporary literary criticism was too often ‘worldless’, by which he meant inattentive to the circumstances that press upon texts, writers and readers alike . . . [For him] All things take place in a solid and freighted world . . . Edward did not . . . politicise everything . . . he was as anxious to save cultural spaces from politics as he was to remind us that most people who say culture should be free of politics mean only that culture should be free of the politics they dislike. (Wood 2003) Advocates of a new order in which employability is to the fore would surely also claim their vision of HE puts it in a solid and freighted world; they and Said offer clearly competing visions but within a similar overall frame.

Expansion and policy The current phase in the growth of universities and ES in Britain begins in the early 1960s. Up until then there had been some growth in the sector.

138  Allen From the founding institutions of the mediaeval period we can trace a development through the creation of university colleges in London, and Durham University in the nineteenth century, to the development of ‘civic’ universities of Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool etc. By 1960 perhaps 38 higher education institutions had been created in the preceding 800 years. In contrast 24 new universities across the UK were created in the next 10 years.2 At this point HE in the UK was made up of: universities (institutions established by Royal Charter or authorized by the Privy Council to award degrees); institutes mostly founded in the nineteenth century to support crafts and industry (some of these were called polytechnics although the polytechnic sector was not fully established until after 1960); colleges of advanced technology (former technical institutes given additional standing in 1956); and teacher training colleges. The history of HE in the UK after 1960 involves in essence the bringing together of these different kinds of institutions into a single policy and managerial framework. The drivers for the expansion of universities are set out in the Robbins Report, commissioned in 1961 and published in 1963, but in fact giving general form to a process already under way given that the Universities of Sussex, Keele, East Anglia, York and Newcastle were all founded between 1961 and 1963 (Robbins 1963). The Report recommended expansion of the higher education sector, and a sector much less dominated by the structures and expectations of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (see Robbins 1963, p. 78ff.). The Report calculated that only 61 per cent of those achieving the basic university entry qualification found a place, and stated flatly, ‘throughout our Report we have assumed as an axiom that courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so’ (pp. 8, 12, 16, 17). The participation rate in university education in 1962 was just 4 per cent, and in all the various kinds of HE as a whole only 15 per cent. For all the rhetoric of turning away from Oxford and Cambridge, however, the Report envisages a future where the range of institutions is demarcated not just by type but also by status. The nationally funded and organized universities remained at the top; the ten colleges of advanced technology were given university status and title, and the authority to award their own degrees, but were perceived as mildly inferior to universities. Below that was a new larger polytechnic sector, and below that the college sector. The polytechnic and college sectors remained under local government control. Polytechnics taught a full degree curriculum but could not award their own degrees. Instead Robbins recommended the establishing of a Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA) as the degree awarding body for colleges and polytechnics, on the model of the existing National Council for Technological Awards. The segmentation was also evident in governance. Universities had pronounced academic and financial autonomy with a bi-cameral system; academic affairs were the prerogative of an academic senate while a council had charge of overall financial affairs. Polytechnics and colleges had academic autonomy but were in effect owned by the local governments in their area; their boards of governors had wider powers and tended to be more interventionist in determining academic direction.

Management ethos and academic work 139 As the sector expanded so too did the range of degree subjects. English Literature was a new subject at the beginning of the century but by the 1960s it had become one of the most popular and well established. Along with other Humanities subjects it was soon found alongside interdisciplinary degrees and a wider range of technical and management and other vocational degrees. ES itself began to take new forms. In universities the focus was on literary texts. English Language had a usually parallel presence, taught from a historical or linguistic methodology. The inclusion of Anglo-Saxon language and literature increasingly became a marker for institutions which wanted to claim alignment with Oxford and Cambridge. Elsewhere there was a pride in breaking with tradition through interdisciplinary work and, for example, ‘area’ studies. Within colleges of technology and other specialist colleges, English tended to figure largely in terms of ‘communication’ or as an optional subject. In colleges of education meanwhile there was a focus on literature to support teaching of English in secondary schools, and on the acquisition of language. Thus English literary studies largely retained its prestige, alongside but separate from and unaffected by the more explicit vocational orientation of technical subjects. The Robbins Report does not see this divide as an issue. The expansion of access to higher education generally is what will lead to the expansion of an educated workforce; thus, ‘if productivity is to advance . . . a substantial increase in the proportion of the population that is both skilled and versatile will be necessary . . . the skills and the versatilities required are increasingly those conferred by higher education’ (p. 73). Science and technology should expand but should remain broadly in proportion to the Humanities (in 1962 the ratio was 51 per cent ‘science and technology’, 37 per cent ‘arts’, 12 per cent ‘other’). Generally the Report sees a double role for higher education; on the one hand the vision is now more plainly vocational, ‘the majority of graduates will, we hope, be sufficiently versatile to be capable of varied employment’, but on the other the university continues to be important in maintaining what Matthew Arnold had called ‘the spirit of the race’. The Robbins Report states flatly that ‘any decline or weakening in the study of the humanities would impoverish the intellectual and spiritual life of the country’ (pp. 164–5).3 The next major set of changes came around thirty years after the Robbins Report with the passing of the Education Reform Act of 1988 covering schools as well as HE, and then the Further and Higher Education Act of 1992. The focus now was not so much on expansion as on the structure and management of a rapidly expanding HE sector. In the school sector, the 1988 Act introduced a prescriptive National Curriculum, substantially overriding the autonomy of teachers. In universities the Act abolished tenure for academic staff, allowing staff to be dismissed (albeit for just cause). This was seen as bringing staff more under the control of those who increasingly referred to themselves as managers, and threatening academic freedom and thought. The 1988 Act also laid the ground for the most visible provision of the 1992 Act, which allowed polytechnics to apply for full university status with the power to award their own degrees. Not surprisingly most did, and the CNAA, stripped of most of its business by this provision, was eventually abolished. The result was the creation of a further 35 universities, but

140  Allen despite this integration considerable segmentation continued – and twenty years on still continues. In structural terms universities that were polytechnics have preserved their governance arrangements as well as appointing staff on distinct terms and condition of service. In academic terms curriculum differences also persist. In ES, for example, Liverpool Polytechnic which became Liverpool John Moores University now offers a curriculum akin to that in most pre-1992 universities (Liverpool John Moores 2014). But more typical is the former Coventry Polytechnic which as Coventry University offers an ES curriculum less focused on literature and more on language; among the special advantages claimed for the courses are: the opportunity to develop a practical and career focused orientation by enhancing your critical thinking and developing the communication skills employers want [and] the opportunity to complete a work placement, which is not only a valuable experience but will also give you an edge when applying for jobs. (Coventry University 2014) Aston College of Advanced Technology as Aston University retains its strong focus on technical education and research and teaches only English Language (Aston University 2014). Less in the public eye, the Act introduced new funding arrangements. Acknowledging the separation of jurisdiction in the different parts of the UK, funding councils were created in England, Wales and Scotland (in Northern Ireland the government retained direct control).4 Previously the remit of the University Grants Committee and the University Funding Council focused on the allocation of funds and the further development of the sector. The 1992 Act required the new funding councils to ensure ‘provision is made for assessing the quality of education provided in institutions for whose activities they provide, or are considering providing, financial support’ (para. 70). The first body charged with this responsibility – the Higher Education Quality Council – was formally established in May 1992 not by the funding councils but by the bodies representing the vice-chancellors and principals of universities and colleges, establishing from the beginning at least the principle of peer review. The Council was also established with a developmental as well as a regulatory role, so that alongside regular quality audits it also established development projects and set up good practice guidelines.5 In 1997 the HE Quality Council was replaced by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) which retains these powers and exercises them through a range of activities including, centrally, the regular inspection of HE institutions in all four parts of the United Kingdom (QAA 2014a). Autonomy remains an important feature of the post-1992 university system in the UK: universities are autonomous entities; the funding councils are separate from government and autonomous by the authority of the 1992 Act; the QAA is legally a charity and a company limited by guarantee; academic staff lost tenure but kept autonomy under the 1988 Act which referred

Management ethos and academic work 141 to the need . . . to ensure that academic staff have freedom within the law . . . to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges they may have at their institutions. (Government of the UK 1988, Section 202[2]) But autonomy is in all cases, and to different degrees, limited – and may be more perceived than real. Thus academic freedom is asserted under the 1988 Act but remains generally conspicuously undefined, unlike in the United States. In 2009 the trades union representing university staff did develop a more fully worked-out statement but it is not clear that this has been embedded in individual university agreements (University and College Union 2009). The most obvious and the strongest influence over HE, and the strongest challenge to the autonomy of universities, comes from the government. The conduit for this influence is often informal. Vice-chancellors are appointed by independent university councils but those councils are made up of what is often referred to as ‘the great and the good’, members of the business or judicial elite ready to work within a ‘commonsense’ discourse shared with the government.6 By appointment vice-chancellors become part of this elite, called upon to chair government committees etc. Formally government influence takes its most visible form in the annual letter written to the funding agency by whichever officer of state is responsible for HE. The priorities set out are consistent across the years and across governments. The letter sent in November 1999 presages the letter sent in 2013 cited above. In 1999 the Secretary of State wrote that: Universities need to produce graduates with both specialist knowledge and the generic skills they need and their employers need in the world of work . . . I now ask the Council to make additional funds available for the enhancement and promotion of employment-related key skills in the teaching and learning of all students, including more work experience placements. (Dept. for Education and Employment 1999) To put it in more local terms, ES students must acquire skills immediately usable in employment in addition to the skills involved in literary study, or the skills of literary study must be reworked so that they are explicitly the skills of employment (enabling work experience placements). Independent reports commissioned by the government provide an equally public source of pressure for the funding councils and universities. Indeed, because they have a longer-term applicability than the annual funding letter, they may be more influential. Behind the 1999 letter there is the continuing influence of the Dearing Report, Higher Education in a Learning Society, published 1997 (Dearing 1997). Ronald Dearing was a government insider, able to appeal across political parties, chair first of the Board of the Post Office, then head of the Council for National Academic Awards, the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding

142  Allen Council, the Universities Funding Council, the newly merged Higher Education Funding Council for England, and the new created School Curriculum and Assessment Authority. His committee’s report has had a powerful forming and regulatory effect on everything that goes on in lecture and seminar rooms (real and virtual). One might assume that most universities and most staff had over the years an interest in developing teaching. Dearing’s aim was to institutionalize that and translate it into structures. Thus Recommendation 8 effectively instructs: all institutions of higher education [to] give high priority to developing and implementing learning and teaching strategies which focus on the promotion of students’ learning. Previously a teacher might teach as they wish, subject only to preparing students for their examination; now they must follow their institution’s Learning and Teaching Strategy. Courses and teaching are further formalized through the requirement to create programme specifications for all courses, owned by the institution. These are to set out the intended outcomes of the programme in terms of . . . knowledge and understanding . . . key skills . . . cognitive skills . . . subject specific skills . . . Such programme specifications . . . will provide a basis for employers and students to understand the level – or standard – that programmes are aiming to reach in different areas. (Dearing 1997, p. 141) Dearing goes on to recommend that all universities develop Communications and IT Strategies, effectively institutionalizing computer-based learning as the norm for new teaching methods. The content of courses becomes more centrally managed in other ways. Recommendation 25 proposes something approaching the National Curriculum already established in schools; ‘expert teams’ are to be established working with the Quality Assurance Agency ‘to provide benchmark information on standards, in particular threshold standards, operating within the framework of qualifications’ (p. 163). The QAA has a very significant oversight role in Dearing’s view. In addition to inspecting institutions to assure quality it is charged with managing the development of subject benchmark statements, and establishing a Framework for HE Qualifications which sets out approved statements defining transferable skills and learning outcomes stage by stage in degree study, as well as defining the qualities of ‘graduateness’.7 Finally, here, Dearing recommends that ‘all institutions should, over the medium term, identify opportunities to increase the extent to which programmes help students to become familiar with work, and help them to reflect on such experience’ (Recommendation 18, p. 136). This goes beyond recommending that students gain experience of work; by implication universities are required to create space for reflection on this experience within the overall curriculum.

Management ethos and academic work 143

English Studies in this context Bringing ES within this context, we might think of returning to a scene in which an ES lecturer ponders a new course. They will assuredly be thinking in terms of which books to teach, and which current or innovative theory or approach they wish their students to explore. The evidence is indeed that teachers still do have control over the content of the syllabus at what one might call the micro-level, of whether for example to teach A Tale of Two Cities or Great Expectations, but even at this level choices risk being overwhelmed by the requirements just described. Micro-level decisions are expected to be appropriate to a macro-level curriculum set as part of the subject benchmark. In the Humanities to date these benchmarks have been relatively liberal and permissive, but examples of much more tightly drawn specifications can be found in the professional subjects, and the precedent is there in the school National Curriculum for something more politically directed.8 The educational and political importance of benchmarks is indicated by the example of Creative Writing. The English subject benchmark was published in 2007 before the remarkable rise in popularity of Creative Writing, and makes only brief reference to it. This might have left Creative Writing and its teachers free. In fact, to establish the standing of the subject a subject association was created – the National Association of Writers in Education (NAWE) – which has published its own benchmarks very much on the QAA model with statements of learning outcomes and transferable skills (NAWE 2014). In summary, an ES teacher is free to define the content of a particular assignment, but subject to fairly constant surveillance by his or her peers and by their institution. A module must have a defined relation to a programme and contribute to an approved programme specification. Assessment must be framed within the specifications of knowledge and transferable skills contained in the QAA Framework for Higher Education Qualifications and the subject benchmark. Typically proposers of an ES course have to match the development of statements about content with the development of a ‘curriculum map’ which charts, module by module, the assessment of learning outcomes through the course. At their backs is the pressure to show their students have become ‘familiar with work’ and ‘reflect on such experience’. Here their institution will be reminding them that data from the course will contribute to institutional performance in what is now called the Destination of Leavers from HE Institutions Survey (HEFCE 2014a).9 An English teacher involved in research in the UK is likely to feel the same degree of surveillance. Research time must be accounted for but more importantly research is less defined by universities as a behaviour, a desire in the enquirer to enrich and update, and more as something measurable and defined by outputs. Research in universities is judged through assessment exercises held approximately every four years. The end of the process is a judgement by one’s academic peers which might be thought unexceptionable, but the broader framework is more coercive. Thus the cycle of assessment favours, even requires, regular production of most likely short pieces. More recently a direct economic

144  Allen or quasi-economic measure has been added to the criteria, namely ‘impact’ (see Ch. 3 section 5 above). Although the definition here appears broad – the Guidance refers to considering the ‘reach and significance’ of [research] impacts [sic] on the economy, society and/or culture’ (REF 2014) – research in the Humanities is pressed into an applied science and technology paradigm where research can be measured in terms of invention, engineering and new drugs etc. (Studying for a research degree brings one within the same framework. The final thesis remains the key ‘output’ but students are urged to create ‘outputs’ ahead of that.) It is difficult to locate evidence to support these hypothetical images of university life and show how these different factors come together in the day-to-day life of an academic. But a ‘Diary’ piece in the London Review of Books by Marina Warner describes how government policies, the rhetoric of the market, and a short-termism that is typical of the real market came together to upset plans and make for distressing working conditions (Warner 2014). Decisions by university management one year on a calculus of impact and external prestige are overthrown the next by a different calculus based ostensibly on teaching but actually more on crudely financial aims. One might conclude from Warner’s account, first that the present system is antithetical to research (and perhaps even teaching) that requires long-term commitments, and second that if this is the experience of a senior academic, how much more compelling must the pressures be for someone starting a career perhaps with only a fixed term contract. Observers within and without Indian HE will note a number of similarities with the situation in Britain described so far. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has the role of the Higher Education Funding Councils (HEFC), while the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and the Distance Education Council (DEC) together fulfil the role of the UK Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). NAAC has an inspection regime analogous to that of the QAA, though more linked to quantitative measures and subsuming the assessment of research outputs as well as research processes. The UGC has occasionally issued a model curriculum (see Chapter 2) analogous to the UK subject benchmark statements, albeit set out in rather more schematic way. The key differences until recently lay in the fact that NAAC accreditation was voluntary, and that the accreditation bodies lacked autonomy: NAAC was under the control of the UGC, while the DEC is still part of the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). In 2006 a representative of NAAC seemed to accept that it had the capacity to review just over a third of institutions (6,000 from 17,000) (WNER 2006). In 2013, however, accreditation was made mandatory, and NAAC moved directly under the control of the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) (Telegraph Calcutta 2014; Times of India 2014). The aim, it was reported, was that NAAC should, within the MHRD, be more independent and more active but how far would this be possible given that the head will be appointed by the Ministry? For all this the quality assurance system for universities in India will if anything become closer to the UK model, which in turn can be seen as indicating a direction of travel for the future in India.

Management ethos and academic work 145

Marketization and conservatism Those participating in the workshops described in Chapters 3 (see Further Discussion section) and 4 (see General Remarks section) were concerned by a trend towards the marketization of HE in India and the effect this has on university policies and teacher and student experience, though the nature of this trend was somewhat undefined. Here again the British situation may offer some insight. The Dearing Report rather set its face against the trend, stating categorically, ‘we do not believe that students will in the future see themselves simply as customers of higher education but rather as members of a learning community’ (Dearing 1997, 4.59). Subsequent government policies, however, have very much tipped the balance directly and indirectly towards the market. Fees have played a key role here. In the 1960s and 1970s universities were funded by a combination of grant and fees, but for UK students fees were almost always paid direct by the student’s home local authority. Fees paid direct by students set at a relatively low level were introduced in 1998 by the New Labour government. Subsequently in 2010 the Conservative government changed the system, allowing universities to charge up to £9,000. The rationale for this major change is complex, but one aim was certainly to create a market in which universities would compete on price and service etc. In reality the market effect was limited. Fees were automatically paid on students’ behalf by the newly created Student Loans Company; they became loans to be repaid according to a set system contingent on a student achieving a certain income. The range of fees/prices was limited; institutions charged the full fee using, ironically, the market-oriented argument that to charge a lower fee would signal that they were providing a lower-quality education. The effect of fees was also more or less inseparable from other factors, especially the effect of students preferring more to study locally and live at home. Notwithstanding these factors the rhetoric of fees, of a market, of getting something for one’s money, has been strong. The fact that students are ‘customers’ who apparently pay themselves for services introduces a need for information – as one needs information about the energy consumption or range of programmes on a washing machine. Thus the Letter sent by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills to the Funding Council in January 2013 pressed ‘the sector to ensure that students have clear information about the experience they will receive from their institution’ (including the amount of contact time). The Department also urged the council to press ahead with systems to publish ‘student evaluations of teaching and the qualifications and expertise of teaching staff’ (Department for Business, Innovation and Skills 2013). Public systems similar to the US ‘Rate My Professors’ website (Rate My Professors 2014) have not made strong headway in the UK, but students are regularly asked to evaluate their teaching as they might be asked to evaluate their shopping experience. University websites that give details of courses must now carry information derived from the National Student Survey, through statements in the form, for example, ‘88% Students agreed staff are good at explaining things’,

146  Allen ‘12% time in lectures, seminars and similar’ (Unistats 2014). These systems do allow communication from student to student, or student to prospective student, but they also become a readily accessible headline tool for university managers and part of the systems for surveillance of teaching. Vice-chancellors become pre-occupied by the league tables that can be produced from the data, and a department with low ratings in the National Student Survey can expect a call from the university management. Research, or rather the measuring of research described above, figures interestingly in this marketized world. Charters which established universities before 1992 tend to refer rather generally to their being engaged in ‘the advancement of learning and knowledge by teaching and research’ (Sussex University 2014). A college applying to be recognised as a university needs to show only that its staff have relevant ‘knowledge and understanding of current research and advanced scholarship in their discipline area and that such knowledge and understanding directly inform and enhance their teaching’ (QAA 2014b, p. 47). Yet now research prowess can also seem close to the defining feature of a university. The British Council suggests overseas enquirers consult not just the results of the National Student Survey and QAA reports, but also the results of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) 2008 and the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 (British Council 2014). Research figures largely too in the various international rankings for universities, the most prominent of which are the QS University Rankings (QS 2014).10 Research and learning and teaching assessments can perfectly logically cut across each other. A university may figure in the top 100 in the World Rankings but receive a ‘needs improvement’ rating from those assessing teaching quality. Faced with such a situation one commentator has no doubt that the World Rankings would prevail: The QAA would look foolish. How could it possibly say it did not have confidence in standards there when international researchers in many fields look to that university? . . . The obvious inference is that something is wrong with its own inspection processes, not with the university in question. (Times Higher Education 2014) Public rankings exercises can and do drive both educational policy and the dayto-day experience of students and teachers in the UK. A university with a high QS ranking will require staff to give priority to research, hoping prospective students will be attracted by this rather than noticing the rather low contact times that result. Other universities will pursue the opposite tack, but even then they will want to demonstrate that staff are engaged with current research in their field, which means marrying high contact times and time for updating research and scholarship. The Dearing Report entered early into this debate. In a discussion of the management of resources it proposes that universities ‘implement arrangements which allow staff and external bodies to have access to and understand the true costs of research’ (Dearing 1997, p. 234). The result was the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) ‘introduced in HEIs progressively from 1999– 2000, to satisfy the government’s requirements for increased transparency and

Management ethos and academic work 147 accountability for the use of public funds’ (HEFCE 2014b). The sub-text, barely concealed in Dearing, is the control of spending on research. Salary for time spent on research can be attributed to teaching to enable teaching to be up to date, but more or less beyond that there is an attempt to ensure that spending on research matches income. As with marketization this can be a matter of rhetoric as much as reality but the rhetoric bears heavily on staff. Although universities submit data at a high level of generality, they are audited to ensure this information arises from individual staff data; in effect university staff are then required to define their time in terms of research (linked to a countable output), scholarship (linked to a specific teaching objective), and teaching itself, and to match those time commitments to institutional norms. As university vice-chancellors look at all their management information, they can hardly resist feeling like the CEO of a company comparing their costs with that of a rival company. Among those rivals are private providers, albeit with a smaller presence in the UK than in India. The oldest, the University of Buckingham founded in 1976, has a relatively traditional curriculum, offering a degree in ES as well as joint honours programmes including English. The novelty here is that the university offers the chance to study over two years as well as the more typical three years (Buckingham University 2014). The more recently empowered Regent’s University in many respects also resembles a traditional public university. It does not offer a degree in ES but does offer qualifications in more vocational aspects of English, e.g. performance studies (Regents University 2014). The most aggressive new entrants, including BPP (Brierley Price Prior) University, the largest private provider alongside a long list of smaller colleges, focus exclusively on vocational subjects. BPP University offers no degree courses in English, but only remedial courses in English language (BPP University 2014). Although these institutions are private and, in the case of BPP, ‘for profit’, students are entitled to translate their fees into loans as at a public university. It was reported in 2013 that the government has de facto committed £175 million to this private provision through loans (Times Higher Education 2013). Plainly university life is still more flexible and free for staff and students but the shadow of the strict life of the electronics production line or the call centre does hang over it. There is the same focus on maintaining outputs, the same collection of data on performance, the same threat of action if production is not maintained, and the same focus on managed customer relations and customer service. There is a stronger sense of a university as a corporate entity, foregrounding corporate loyalty among its staff rather than the freedom to dissent. Vice-chancellors operate more in the mode of a company CEO, divided from their learning community not just by increasingly large pay differentials, but also by the apparatus and discourse of business and management. This kind of environment is more challenging for the Humanities in the UK. While the government still provides financial support for applied areas of study – in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) – the Humanities are pretty much entirely dependent on student fees. In such a situation and subject to the kind of surveillance and management described earlier it would hardly be surprising if in many institutions there was a tendency towards conservatism in the curriculum, and a tendency to

148  Allen be distracted from any debate about new grand narratives of ES. The regulatory framework described above can easily have the same effect. This is partly because of the weight of regulation in itself and the amount of paperwork required in the introduction of a new programme. Equally, the management of time through the TRAC process often makes, for example, coordination across departments or the freeing up of time for ‘free thinking’ more difficult. In essence the regulatory framework requires that those proposing a new project know exactly how that project will work before it is introduced rather than there being scope for organic growth. Surveys of syllabuses which are publicly available suggest too that the core of the syllabus in ES remains much as it was in the 1960s. New developments which have seemed to have the potential for large scale change – Marxism, Feminism, Post-colonialism and theoretical approaches generally, Scottish Studies etc. – seem largely identified as third-year options. Some might argue that the new approaches have become embedded in the core of the subject but it is perhaps more likely that the innovations have been appropriated or neutralized within a more conservative environment.

Looking forward The evidence to date is, however, that ES remains attractive to prospective students in Britain. The most popular subjects are all broadly speaking directly vocational, but English is in the top five of non or indirectly vocational; the numbers applying in 2013 were also broadly similar to the number applying in 2008 (UCAS 2014). But looking forward one can see the possibility of a division in the sector. The study of English Literature would continue in high-status institutions where the name alone provides an entry into the job market (as with the US Ivy League universities). Meanwhile in a larger number of universities the study of ‘English’ would become only an option within a vocational curriculum or would give way to courses designed to improve communication and language skills. It would be wise to avoid any kind of quasi-colonial determinism in thinking of how this situation compares with that in India, but equally naïve to think that it does not provide some kind of exemplar. The increase in student numbers, the introduction of a coercive management ethos, the increased counting of outputs in research, and the increase in quality assurance mechanisms all suggest that India is part of a globalised trend in HE which also involves the increased use of new technology and an increase in the movement of students and staff across borders and continents. Pressure to improve performance in the QS Asia, BRICS and world rankings is likely also to lead to a segmented sector, as partly foreshadowed in the 2014 Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA) initiative. The detailed explanation of the plans for state HE set out in this National Higher Education Mission includes an extensive section asserting the central value of the autonomy of HE institutions but there are qualifications, and elsewhere it is stated rather bluntly that the very substantial additional funding offered by government will be subject to ‘conditions [set by the national government which] are

Management ethos and academic work 149 in the nature of categorical policy imperatives that would ensure that the higher education in the country is guided on desirable paths by all states’ (RUSA 2014 p. 105). It seems plain that a system which separates out research-intensive universities from teaching universities is favoured. English language teaching seems likely to remain embedded across the segments; the RUSA document refers here to the advantage of English being taught ‘as part of an all-round holistic educational experience that would perhaps be more attractive than a course with a single focus’ (p. 137) but it is striking that the phrasing here avoids reference to English literature, and again perhaps English literary studies will become the preserve of elite institutions.

Notes   1 Archibald MacLeish’s 1926 poem ‘Ars Poetica’ and its lines ‘A poem should be equal to:/ Not true.’, ‘A poem should not mean/ But be’ still provided a keynote (MacLeish 2014).  2 It is interesting – but beyond the scope of this chapter – to speculate on the relationship between this expansion in universities and the attempt to remake economic and political society in the wake of the dissolution of the British Empire and the still powerful after effects of the 1939–45 war.   3 The choice of Robbins to lead the review is interesting here because he was an advocate of public funding of the Arts and served as a member of the Board of the Royal Opera and the National Gallery etc.   4 The jurisdictional differences within the UK, and the devolution of powers has increased. Educational policies thus differ across the UK but there is a continuing uniformity (at least at the time of writing) in the systems for funding and quality assurance in HE, making the following discussion generally applicable within the UK though it refers most directly to the situation in England.   5 This summary is indebted to the cover page of the archive of documents of the Higher Education Quality Council in the English National Archives (UK National Archives 2014).  6 The boards of the funding councils share the same qualities. The present chair of the Board of the Higher Education Funding Council for England was chief executive of a major mutual financial institution, and combined his role at HEFCE with being director general of the Institute of Directors, chair of Investors in People UK, and chair of a major international insurance company.   7 The results of this can be seen at http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/ Documents/Framework-Higher-Education-Qualifications-08.pdf and http:// www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/subjectbenchmark-statements   8 ‘Michael Gove “axes” American classics including To Kill a Mockingbird from English literature GCSE syllabus’ (The Independent 2014).  9 The survey measures the success of institutions in preparing students for work by recording whether they are in work six months after graduation. Prestigious research-intensive universities have found themselves compared unfavourably here with more lowly institutions that have put a more direct focus on work experience and the employability of their students. 10 The headline ratings here place six US universities and four UK universities in the top ten in the world. Asian universities start to figure with the National University of Singapore, ranked 24, and Indian universities with IIT Delhi, ranked 222.

150  Allen

References Arnold, Matthew (1962 [1880]). ‘The Study of Poetry’. Reprinted in D. J. Enright, E. de Chickera (eds.) English Critical Texts. London: Oxford University Press. Aston University (2014). A to Z of Courses. www.aston.ac.uk/study/undergraduate/ courses/atoz/ BPP University (2014). University Programmes. www.bpp.com. British Council (2014). Higher Education Universities and Colleges: Choosing a Reputable University or College. www.educationuk.org/global/articles/higher-educationuniversities-colleges/ Buckingham University (2014). Undergraduate Courses: English. www.buckingham. ac.uk/find-a-course/?area=English+Literature&level=U Coventry University (2014). English BA Hons. www.coventry.ac.uk/course-struc ture/2014/faculty-of-business-environment-and-society/undergraduate/english-bahons/?theme=main Dearing, Ronald (1997). Higher Education in a Learning Society. London: HMSO. Available at www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/dearing1997/dearing1997. html Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2013). Higher Education Funding For 2013–14. At www.hefce.ac.uk/news/newsarchive/2013/news76313.html Department for Education and Employment (1999). Higher Education Funding for 2000–01 and 2001–02 webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202100434/ http://hefce.ac.uk/News/HEFCE/1999/dfee2499.htm (accessed 17.04.14) Government of India (2008). Eleventh Five Year Plan 2007–12 Volume II Social Sector. planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/fiveyr/11th/11_v2/11th_vol2.pdf Government of the UK (1988). Education Act. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/40/ section/203/enacted Government of the UK (1992). Further and Higher Education Act. www.legislation. gov.uk/ukpga/1992/13/section/70/enacted HEFCE (2014a). Destination of Leavers from Higher Education Survey. www.hefce. ac.uk/whatwedo/lt/publicinfo/dlhe/ HEFCE (2014b). Financial sustainability and TRAC (the Transparent Approach to Costing). www.hefce.ac.uk/whatwedo/lgm/trac/ The Independent (2014). ‘Michael Gove “axes” American classics including To Kill a Mockingbird from English literature GCSE syllabus’. 25 May. www.independent. co.uk/news/education/education-news/michael-gove-axes-to-kill-a-mockingbirdand-other-american-classics-from-english-literature-gcse-syllabus-9432818.html Liverpool John Moores University (2014). BA Hons English www.ljmu.ac.uk/ courses/undergraduate/2014/english MacLeish, Archibald (2014 [1926]). ‘Ars Poetica’. Available at www.poetryfoundation. org/poetrymagazine/poem/6371 NAWE [National Association for Writers in Education] (2014). See link at www.nawe. co.uk/writing-in-education/writing-at-university/research.html Newbolt, Henry (1921). The Teaching of English in England. Available at www.education england.org.uk/documents/newbolt/newbolt1921.html Presidency University (2014). Brief History of Presidency [Kolkata]. www.presiuniv. ac.in/web/presidency_history.php QAA [Quality Assurance Agency] (2014a). How We Review Higher Education. www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews-and-reports/how-we-review-higher-education

Management ethos and academic work 151 QAA (2014b). Degree Awarding Powers: Handbook for Applicants. www.qaa.ac.uk/ en/Publications/Documents/DAP-Handbook-14.pdf QS [Quacquarelli Symonds Limited] (2014). Top Universities www.topuniversities.com Rate My Professors (2014). Rate my Professors, www.ratemyprofessors.com REF [Research Excellence Framework] (2014 [2011]). Assessment Framework and Guidance on Submissions. www.ref.ac.uk/media/ref/content/pub/assessmentframework andguidanceonsubmissions/GOS%20including%20addendum.pdf Regents University (2014). Undergraduate Study Programmes. www.regents.ac.uk/ study/undergraduate-study/programmes. Robbins, Lionel (1963). Higher Education: Report of the Committee Appointed by the Prime Minister under the Chairmanship of Lord Robbins 1961–63. London: HMSO. Available at www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/robbins/robbins1963.html#03 RUSA [Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan] (2014). Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (National Higher Education Mission). mhrd.gov.in/rusa Sussex University (2014 [1959, amended 2012]). Charter. www.sussex.ac.uk/ogs/ govdocuments The Telegraph Calcutta (2014). ‘UGC makes accreditation a must’. www.telegraphindia. com/1130305/jsp/nation/story_16634387.jsp#.U9uPgki7mxU Times Higher Education Supplement (2013). ‘Private Provider Student Spending Trebles, says BIS’. 19 November. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/privateprovider-student-spending-trebles-says-bis/2009136.article Times Higher Education Supplement (2014). ‘Southampton Shows Teeth and Watchdog Backs Down’. 16 May. www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/southamptonshows-teeth-and-watchdog-backs-down/2003862.article The Times of India (2014). ‘NAAC to Move out of Regulator UGC’s Shadow’. timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/education/news/NAAC-to-move-out-ofregulator-UGCs-shadow/articleshow/30079569.cms UCAS [Universities and Colleges Admissions Service] (2014). Applications (Choices) and Accepted Applicants by JACS Subject Group. www.ucas.com/data-analysis/ data-resources/data-tables/subject UK National Archives (2014). The Record of the Higher Education Quality Council. discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?uri=C1370 Unistats (2014). Key Information Set. unistats.direct.gov.uk/find-out-more/keyinformation-set University and College Union (2009). Academic Freedom. www.ucu.org.uk/academicfreedom Warner, Marina (2014), ‘Diary [Why I quit]]’. London Review of Books 36, 11 September: 17. www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n17/marina-warner/diary WNER [World Education News and Reviews] (2006). ‘Quality Assurance in Indian Higher Education’. www.wes.org/ewenr/06feb/feature.htm Wood, Charles (1854). Despatch to Lord Dalhousie, Governor General, [temp]. http:// www.kkhsou.in/main/education/wood_despatch.html Wood, Michael (2003). ‘On Edward Said’. London Review of Books 25, 23 October: 20. www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n20/michael-wood/on-edward-said Zakir Husain Delhi College (2014). History. www.zakirhusaindelhicollege.in/History.aspx

8 Debates in English Studies in the United States and India Subarno Chattarji and Richard Allen

This chapter considers recent debates surrounding English Studies (ES) in the United States (US) and India, beginning with an overview of US Higher Education (HE) structures and issues of funding and employment. The chapter then goes on to discuss perceptions of crises, pedagogical issues such as the theory versus literature discussion, the canon debate, and the relationship between literary studies and the English language. American Literature/American Studies is touched upon only briefly as it is subsumed within domains of English literary studies in India (there are, for instance, no American Studies departments in Indian universities).

US HE System The US HE system differs from the UK system in a number of ways relevant to the future of ES. A Bachelors degree, for example, requires four years of study in the US. Four-year Bachelors degrees are traditional in Scotland (though the curriculum structures differ from the US system), but in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland three years is the norm and the Bologna Convention aims to establish that as the norm across Europe. The US four-year degree has also very much a modular structure as compared to the UK and India. Students do follow regular pathways, but overarching regulations enjoin stipulations which students must meet as they accumulate credit for an award, and which they must keep in mind in choosing modules semester by semester. The most common element of these stipulations is the ‘General Education’ requirement: whatever their specialist subject, students must gain credit from study of courses teaching skills in a range of subjects (English, a foreign language, mathematics, science etc.). One leading university defines the aim of its general education requirement thus: to ensure that . . . all undergraduates develop . . . essential skills . . . and are exposed to the vast wealth of course offerings . . . The Gen Ed Curriculum also includes Shared Goals of intensive writing experience, information fluency, an understanding of diversity in the U.S., and other enriching educational experiences. (IUB 2014)

English Studies in the US and India 153 By way of example, then, the requirements for a BA in English at Florida State University are as follows: Min. Hrs. Required 1201 Liberal Studies [General Education] 36* Major Coursework 33 Minor Coursework 12 minimum Other Coursework 0–12 (depending on foreign language placement) Computer Skills 3 Oral Competency 0-3 Electives to bring total hours to 120 (Florida State University 2014) In older established universities a student proceeds through the four years – described as freshman, sophomore, junior, and senior years – but generally the four years will be divided into two ‘junior’ years and two ‘senior’ years with specialism concentrated in the senior years. Specialism in ES then involves meeting first stipulations relating to ‘gen ed’ in the first two years and then a set of specialist stipulations in English in the later two years. It is important to understand these structures not only so as to comprehend the experience and learning journey of an ES student in the US, but also because they are the basis of HE institutional structuring. Students may apply immediately for a four-year course, and they then have to choose between universities which can be private not-for-profit (the most exclusive) or state-funded and authorised (the largest group) or private for-profit (a smaller but rapidly expanding group). But they may also opt for a two-year course at a locally funded and authorised community college. By numbers this is the largest segment in the sector. Colleges can vary in size but Maricopa Community Colleges – based on ten campuses – claim to be the largest with 250,000 students. Successful study at a community college leads to an ‘associate’ degree; at Maricopa an Associate in Arts degree is awarded for completion of the following credit hours: The Maricopa County Community College District Associate in Arts degree requires 60–64 semester credits for the program of study. The degree includes the following components:   I. General Education:

Arizona General Education Curriculum for Arts (AGEC-A)



MCCCD Additional Requirements

II. General Electives (Maricopa 2014)

154  Chattarji and Allen It seems evident that this is a non-specialist degree and includes little that would form part of a specialist four-year degree in English. Indeed English literature is likely to figure in an ‘AA’ degree only when that is geared to enabling transfer to a specific four-year course (Anoka-Ramsey 2014; Michigan 2014). The benefits of community colleges for the government lie in the opportunities they offer, and in the number of better trained or educated workers they turn out; it seems plain that the current government sees community colleges as the way forward for increasing HE participation. President Obama’s policies anticipate doubling of the sector by 2020, along with improvements in quality of teaching etc. (College Atlas 2014; Obama 2014). The opportunities for ES within this expansion seem likely to be limited. Prospective students looking for an alternative to a regular four-year degree may then be increasingly attracted to online private for-profit providers: For-profits make up the fastest-growing segment of higher education, accounting for 20 percent of the two-year associate’s degrees granted in the United States, up from 8 percent two decades ago. Their share of bachelor’s degrees has risen to 7 percent, from virtually nothing. (New York Times 2014) The most high profile, the University of Phoenix, offers full four year ES but the largest take-up is for vocational subjects (Phoenix 2014a). Fees are an important factor in student choice, and thus have an impact on the viability of institutions and courses. Generally fees are paid by students, though they may get help from scholarships – and from the family ‘college fund’ which parents set up on the birth of a child. As access to HE widens, students increasingly draw on loans and particularly the Federal Student Aid system, supplemented by special schemes for military veterans (Studentloans.gov; benefits.various.gov/ gibill). As in the UK, the student loan systems are quite separate from universities and, in the normal run of things, exert no influence over fee setting. The fees for the most highly rated four-year universities are very high ($43,540 for tuition at Princeton in 2015/16), but considerably lower elsewhere in the public sector ($13,683 at Rutgers University in 2015/16 for a student resident in the state). Fees at community colleges are lower still, perhaps typically $5,000 in 2013/14. However, fees at a private for-profit university take us back to the level of state universities, approximately $12,000 per year (Bergen 2014, Phoenix 2014b; Princeton 2014; Rutgers 2014). Understanding these figures is important not just because of what they tell us about the segmentation in the US HE system, but because at the time of writing there is controversy over access to Federal State Aid which has implications for many subjects. In essence on one side there are increasing numbers of students and numbers of loans; on the other, given the general economic situation, increasing numbers of graduates means that employment prospects and the economic return on educational investment are falling, making repayment of loans uncertain. The government is discussing meeting this situation by reviewing employment rates programme by programme

English Studies in the US and India 155 and institution by institution and refusing loans where graduates do not achieve targets for employment (US Dept of Education 2014). At present this is couched in terms of regulating poor-quality private for-profit colleges and universities, but there is concern that the process will be extended. An Indian government minister might see here the seeds of a scenario for Indian HE. Weaknesses in the school system, the demand for an educated and skilled workforce, a sense of the value of interdisciplinary thinking – all could prompt a move, drawing on the recent Delhi University experiment, to a fouryear degree system. Alongside that, and allowing a lower cost increase in the participation rate, a two-year award could be introduced. Fees for regular courses in public universities in India now are hardly high enough to be a factor in course choice, but private university fees are very much higher (the fee for a management course at Amity University in 2014–15 is $2,200). To press publicsector institutions to change the Government might choose through loans or grants to support study at private universities, while levelling the playing field by increasing public university costs. Regulating the allocation of support according to success in employment is then but a step away. Other features of the US system will seem more familiar; for example, the emphasis on learning outcomes in the design and assessment of courses. HE quality and standards in the US are regulated by a series of regional bodies. The Middle States Commission for Higher Education (MSCHE) regulates all public and private HE in a large section of the East Coast centred on Philadelphia. Their guidance on the ‘characteristics of excellence’ states: ‘Effective educational offerings thus begin with expected learning outcomes: statements, expressed in observable terms, of the knowledge, skills, and competencies that students are expected to exhibit upon successful completion of a course’ (MSCHE 2006, p. 41), paralleling similar statements in NAAC Guidance (NAAC 2013, p. 15). There are differences, however, which are significant. First, as noted in the previous chapter accreditation by NAAC has only recently been made compulsory in India. Second, the US understanding of learning outcomes takes account of the structure of US degrees and particularly the general education component. The MSCHE guidance adds to the statement above: Institutional-level learning outcomes stem from the institution’s mission and are often embodied in the learning outcomes of the general education curriculum, although an institution may have institutional learning outcomes that students achieve in other ways. A college may, for example, have learning goals that are achieved through a community service requirement for all students, a religious institution may require participation in religious activities  . . .  (MSCHE 2006, p. 41) Learning outcomes as specified by the MSCHE detail transferable skills that students need to achieve to pass courses, but significantly absent in the general education learning outcomes is any reference to employment. There are in fact

156  Chattarji and Allen growing concerns as to the effectiveness of the US HE system in creating a skilled workforce that is immediately useful in employment. It is argued that there is traditional disinclination to consider employment skills in the design of courses which needs to be reversed. As one report puts it, ‘Colleges need businesses to serve as working advisors so that curriculum has relevance and value for their organizational goals and employees’ knowledge and skills.’ The report goes on to suggest that on a larger scale this simple change of attitude is not enough. It argues for a more joined-up approach, identifying four essential stakeholders critical to informing, funding, advocating for, and building successful public-private partnerships to enhance the skills pipeline: government (via policy decisions, agencies, and flexible mandates), private sector businesses and industry associations, educational and training institutions (K–12 and two- and four-year colleges), and nonprofit intermediaries . . . Engagement by all four is necessary to address the disconnect between government, education, and the needs of the business  . . .  (ASTD 2012, p. 11, see also New York Times 2013, Wall Street Journal 2014) The criticisms here do not go as far as some of the blunter statements about the unemployability of graduates found in India, but in both the US and in India the question of how to deal with it is rendered challenging because of the size and diffuseness of the HE system. Were governments to begin to seek an effective solution, pressure on the structure of courses and the definition of acceptable learning outcomes might rapidly follow. This would affect all subject areas, but the pivotal role of English in the Indian economy might make pressure there particularly strong.

Crisis debates in the USA Having considered the policy and institutional structures in US HE apropos ES and their bearing on the Indian situation, this and the following sections turn to the intellectual content of ES programmes in a similarly comparative spirit. A sense of the irrelevance and imminent collapse of ES as a disciplinary field of study, oft mooted since its inception, has been heightened in recent years in the US. Articles with titles such as ‘The Decline of the English Department: How It Happened and What Could Be Done to Reverse It’ (Chace 2009), ‘The Decline and Fall of the English Major’ (Klinkenborg 2013), and ‘The Moral Panic in Literary Studies’ (Bousquet 2014) along with reports by the Association of American Universities on Reinvigorating the Humanities (2004) and the Modern Language Association of America Task Force on Doctoral Study in Language and Literature (2014) reinforce the perception of a discipline under siege. The decline of ES is attributed to a host of factors: the gap between skills imparted and the employment market, the irrelevance of courses taught, the rise of Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs),

English Studies in the US and India 157 the lack of a culture of reading, and the fracturing of the canon. The last argument is made by William Chace who argues that the teaching of texts representing ‘a scattered array of secondary considerations (identity studies, abstruse theory, sexuality, film and culture)’ has led to a distancing ‘from the young people interested in good books’. A return to ‘the intrinsic value of the works themselves’ may resuscitate the ‘comatose field’ avers Chace. This is an argument related as much to the quality (or lack thereof) of texts taught as to a panic arising from shifts in demographics, theorizations, the (in) stability of ‘great books’ and ‘Western Civilization’. Responding to the crisis in ES in 1998 Robert Scholes analysed the relationship between canons and institutional structures not as absolute but open to questioning: Furthermore, our awareness of the existence of canons and our understanding of the processes by which they are maintained and altered makes it possible for us to influence canons through the institutions that support them and to change the institutions through their canons. What I am opposed to is the pretense that there may be some cosmic canon that transcends all institutions because it is based on an unexaminable and unchallengeable Absolute. (Scholes 1998, p. 111) The ‘Absolute’, as Scholes argues, is linked in the Western canon to a Hegelian conception of the ‘Absolute’ in history that redeems if not exonerates the terrible pasts of that civilizational trajectory. First published in 1987 Gerald Graff’s Professing Literature argues for the need to ‘teach the conflicts’ that make the canon, to alert students to controversies, and to move away from the discrete ‘field coverage model’ that cuts ‘connected conversations [. . .] into disconnected fragments’ (Graff 2007, pp. viii, ix; Chapter 9 of this work discusses Graff’s arguments further.). The ‘canon wars’ are related to the perpetual crisis that grips ES. Graff considers the ‘fatalism’ of research scholars who were troubled by the disturbing disparity between their traditional humanistic ideals and their professional practices. They spent much of their time at the early meetings of the Modern Language Association exhorting one another to do something about the disparity, though few of them went beyond ineffectual assertions, reiterated countless times by now, that teaching should be restored to equal importance with research, that the ‘general culture’ of the undergraduate college should be reasserted against the specialization of the graduate school, and (above all) that literature itself should somehow be restored to primacy over scholarship and methodology. The very nature of this diagnosis led the critics of the profession to lapse into fatalism, blaming their problems on the inherent philistinism of American democracy, the inherent vulgarity of the modern age, or the incurable inferiority of their students. (Graff 2007, p. 4)

158  Chattarji and Allen Graff highlights structural, pedagogical, institutional issues inherent in conflicts such as that between theory and literature or literature and language. While he perceives the separation of literary studies and language along with composition as being disastrous for literary studies (a point on which Scholes is in agreement and most English departments in India are not), Graff thinks literary theory ‘exemplifies to a heightened degree the tendency of all professional literary fields to define their interests parochially and to close ranks against outsiders’ (Graff 2007, p. 251). In contrast, Scholes writes: By theory I mean a canon of methods to be used in studying the three other aspects of textuality [the first being theory]: how to situate a text (history), how to compose one (production), and how to read one (consumption). If English is to be a discipline, theory must be at the center of our teaching. (Scholes 1998, p. 147) These contrastive arguments are not new ones. In his essay ‘Theory, Democracy, and the Public Intellectual’ R. Radhakrishnan cites Edward Said’s response to the theoretical turn in ES: Said is looking for an order of complexity or profundity different from the one that is given the imprimatur of theory. Said’s problem is not with complexity (reality is complex, as are music, literature, and other arts) but with a particular form of hermetic expertise that takes pride in being inaccessible to the nonexpert public that constitutes the demos of democracy. (Radhakrishnan 2010, pp. 786–7) Clearly this is a misinterpretation of the complexity of theory (along with an anxiety of relevance) and Radhakrishnan critiques Said’s position, but what is interesting in Said’s arguments as well as the summations Radhakrishnan provides is their mirroring of the Graff–Scholes contrast (and ones before and after) – further contextualizing the necessity to ‘teach the conflicts’. The canon wars both in the US and India relate not only to literary texts but to the theory v literature debate, as if it were possible to think of literature outside of theory. Paul Lauter’s Canons and Contexts (1991) considers the relation between changes in the US in the 1960s and 1970s and education, i.e. the ways in which bureaucratization, the Civil Rights movement, or the anti-war movement impacted upon and transformed literature curricula. Lauter argues for American Literature as a comparative discipline wherein writings by ‘marginalized’ groups enable new canons to come into being, canons being the vehicle for the survival and memories of alternative histories.2 Focusing on women’s and AfricanAmerican writings Lauter points to how the expansion of the canon allows for an exploration, celebration, and understanding of ‘the differing cultures and traditions that shape real life in these United States’ (Lauter 1991, p. 16). Although Lauter is conscious of the institutional and structured nature of the formation and dissemination of the canon – whether traditional or revised – he seems to

English Studies in the US and India 159 accept the representational and ideological value of the inclusion of minority or ‘marginalized’ authors/texts as enabling a shift in how American Literature is taught and perceived. John Guillory’s Cultural Capital (1993) offers a materialist argument of canon formation considering not merely inclusions and exclusions in literary canons but ‘the institutional forms of syllabus and curriculum’ (Guillory 1993, p. vii). Arguing that canon debates within the US articulate fundamental problems of representation and the illusory transparency of relations between representation and social groups or race, class, and gender, Guillory points to the manner in which the opening of the canon is ‘a kind of demographic oversight. Canonical and non canonical authors are supposed to stand for particular social groups, dominant or subversive’ (Guillory 1993, p. 7. Italics in original). The conflation of race, class, and gender without actually dealing with the questions of class leads to a valorization of non canonical works and minority authors who are ‘considered intrinsically subversive [. . .] overturning [the] supposedly hegemonic values represented by Homer or Shakespeare’. (Guillory 1993, p. 22) The canon debates ignore questions of literacy, literary production, and the institutional site of these debates – the university.3 Guillory highlights fundamental problems in the conceptualization of the canon and its controversies particularly in the ways in which ‘canonical texts are [projected as] repositories of cultural values’ [. . .] ‘the selection of texts is the selection of values’ [. . .] ‘values must either be intrinsic or extrinsic to the work’ (Guillory 1993, pp. 22, 23, 26). This creates a rather curious agreement between progressives and reactionaries in the canon debate in terms of ‘the relation between culture and value’ and ‘both fall well within the normative assumptions of American political culture, even within the normative principles of liberal pluralism’ (Guillory 1993, p. 22). Guillory’s arguments expose the extent to which the canon debates internalize and articulate particularly American concerns related to its national imaginary as inheritor and torch bearer of ‘Western’ cultural values. The concept of the canon incorporates minorities and ethnic ‘others’ within such an imagination and in the process homogenizes them: ‘the construction of alternative canons (that is, alternative syllabi) is very much concerned to reassert the cultural unity of subcultures or countercultures’ (Guillory 1993, p. 34. Italics in original). Once such a unity has been created it is possible to place such cultures within the larger mosaic of American social imaginaries and to erase institutional and social structures that sustain racial or class or gender inequality. As Guillory writes, ‘It is only in the pedagogic imaginary that changing the syllabus means in any immediate sense changing the world’ (Guillory 1993, p. 37. Italics in original). Lauter and Guillory are but two amongst many who have contributed to the canon debate in the US and there has been a pushback against the opening of the canon, the abandonment of the ‘aesthetic’. Harold Bloom is perhaps the best-known defender of the Western canon and in ‘An Elegy for the Canon’ he writes: We need to teach more selectively, searching for the few who have the capacity to become highly individual readers and writers. The others, who are

160  Chattarji and Allen amenable to a politicized curriculum, can be abandoned to it. Pragmatically, aesthetic value can be recognized or experienced, but it cannot be conveyed to those who are incapable of grasping its sensations and perceptions. To quarrel on its behalf is always a blunder. [. . .] A poem cannot be read as a poem, because it is primarily a social document or, rarely yet possibly, an attempt to overcome philosophy. Against this approach I urge a stubborn resistance whose single aim is to preserve poetry as fully and purely as possible. (Bloom 1994, pp. 17, 18) Bloom’s defence of the canon might seem anachronistic in American academia but his arguments resonate with a larger conservative backlash and, as Guillory argues, there is a structural consonance between the progressive and reactionary representations in their ‘normative assumptions of American political culture’. The value of Guillory’s arguments lies precisely in his unpacking of the assumptions underpinning ‘radical’ critiques of the canon at the same time as he offers alternatives to Bloom. To return to traditional ES crisis narratives in the US, these have been accentuated by a decline in undergraduate enrolment and a rising imbalance between the number of PhDs produced and jobs available for them. The latter is acutely felt by increasing numbers of adjunct faculty who have little by way of academic futures and job security. As the MLA Task Force on Doctoral Study put it: We are faced with an unsustainable reality: a median time to degree of around nine years for language and literature doctoral recipients and a long-term academic job market that provides tenure-track employment for only around sixty percent of doctorate recipients. (MLA Report 2014, p. 1) Reasons for the decline in enrolment range from William Chace’s prognosis to Gerald Graff’s on ‘the alienation of most American students from any form of intellectual culture’. Graff goes on to write in the ‘Preface’ to the Twentieth Anniversary Edition: ‘The real point we need to agree upon is that good education is about helping students enter the culture of ideas and arguments’ (Graff 2007, pp. xvi, xvii). ‘Intellectual culture’ can be variably described and there seems to be a whiff of the fatalism Graff had been critical of amongst his predecessors, but ‘the culture of ideas and arguments’ is sufficiently capacious to be acceptable to all. James English’s The Global Future of English Studies tackles the crisis narrative by analysing empirical data in the US, Europe, Australia, and China among other locations. As with Graff and Scholes, English is conscious of a widespread anxiety about ES that is rooted in the historical constitution and imagining of the discipline: ‘Our current anxieties are difficult to untangle from the deep, persistent, and perhaps constitutive sense of institutional fragility and marginalization that

English Studies in the US and India 161 has characterized English from the beginning’ (English 2012, p. 5). However, data related to enrolment and numbers of BA degrees awarded in the US belie the extremity of the declining numbers as English has held its own in a competitive field. English’s data leads him to state: In short, considered strictly in terms of US higher educational enrolments over the past quarter century, English is the dominant field in the fastest rising sector, as well as a field whose share of undergraduate majors is larger than that of the combined computer and information sciences and larger than those of math, physics, chemistry, and geology put together. This is not the scenario of a crisis. (English 2012, p. 17) That the crisis is not one of numbers is indicated in a comparative frame, although in the Indian context separate data for ES is not available. The crisis narrative and its particularities are, however, a part of the academic landscape of India and it is to that I turn next.

Indian anxieties In his discussion of the etymological origins and turns of the word ‘canon’ Scholes makes an observation about the purposive introduction of ES in India which while commonplace amongst studies of the subject continues to haunt the discipline: ‘Many a native in India had Shakespeare as well as other canonical texts caned into him by the curricular arm of the British Raj. The Empire was based on its cannon, canon, and canes to a startling degree’ (Scholes 1998, p. 107). ES thus was and continues to be seen through the prism of structural violence, a colonial import emblematic of inequalities of power. While colonial baggage is undeniable these histories are often cited toward ends which are nativist or ignore the complex position of English in the contemporary world of global capital or both. Such assertions are available, for instance, in G. N. Devy’s In Another Tongue, where he argues for literatures in Indian languages and avers that Indian writing in English is the least developed and sophisticated of literary productions since English is an alien language and does not have an indigenous community of readers (see Devy 1993). The anxiety denoted in this discussion is emblematic of an ahistorical notion of languages rooted biologically in fixed national spaces wherein it is possible to detect and therefore expel ‘foreign’ imports and this anxiety continues to bedevil ES in Indian Higher Education (IHE). Part of this insecurity is related to the perceived use value of English and how that translates into particular social relations and hierarchies. D. L. Sheth offers a standard version of this argument when he writes: ‘English became the language of modernity and of moderns in India and indigenous languages began to be viewed as the medium of the traditionalist, even obscurantist thought and lifestyle’ (Sheth 2010, p. 273). This distinction not only internalizes colonial constructs of the ‘vernacular’ but also erases the trajectories and expressions of modernity in Indian

162  Chattarji and Allen languages. In arguing for the ‘indigenous’ – a problematic term given that Indian languages are not ‘indigenous’ for all time and space – that category is made inferior before the bogey language from ‘outside’, while simultaneously asserting the necessity of retrieving the glory of the ‘indigenous’ before the onslaught of modernity whose only imprimatur is English. Frank Shulze-Engler points to the parochialism inherent in the ethnic locus of culture: ‘The idea of “locating” culture and literature exclusively in the context of ethnicities or nations is rapidly losing plausibility throughout an “English-speaking world” that has long since been multi- rather than monolingual’ (Shulze-Engler and Helf 2009, p. x). A circular, contradictory, and historically and linguistically dubious set of assumptions underlines the continual circulation of such arguments. Chapter 1 of this volume has an extensive discussion of some of the crisis debates in Indian academia. Without repeating those arguments, it is interesting to note that at least two edited volumes – Svati Joshi’s Rethinking English (1991) and Rajeswari Sunder Rajan’s The Lie of the Land (1992) – arose out of teaching and research experiences in the early 1990s, and they expressed in varied sophisticated modes anxieties regarding the position of English in a multilingual nation. Specifically these expressions seemed to reiterate the consciousness of imperial histories conjoined with contemporary circulations in elite discursive forms and networks which made the discipline complicit in the politics of various kinds of oppression related to region, language, caste etc. Having constructed this elite hegemonic frame there was (and continues to be) a paradoxical iteration of the irrelevance of English both as language and discipline in a polyglot nation striving to assert a post-colonial identity. It is interesting, incidentally, that the publication of Rajan’s and Joshi’s volumes coincide almost exactly with the liberalization of the Indian economy and the setting in place of economic policies that have enabled the integration of the Indian economy with global capital, which in turn has impacted on the value and importance of English as a language of commerce and education. Part of the arguments offered in Rajan and Joshi relate also to the theory versus literature debate in which Graff and Scholes participate within the US. In the Indian ES context the resistance to theory was linked to the anxiety of irrelevance and reiterated the arguments of academic parochialism made by Graff, and essays in Rajan and Joshi were at the vanguard of a rethinking of this position.

Language and literature and the question of translation The issue of the relation between English language and literature is not always thought through with clarity and opposition to language teaching is expressed in some ES departments in India. To take the example of the English Department in DU, there is no course on Linguistics in the BA, one in the MA, and the only course offered at the MPhil has no takers. There is, of course, the Linguistics Department in DU, universities such as Jawaharlal Nehru University have always had such a department, and the English and Foreign Languages University (EFLU), Hyderabad, has a school of English Language Education and

English Studies in the US and India 163 of Language Sciences. The workshop discussions, however, showed that many outside linguistics saw the subject in a fairly restricted way, more or less equivalent to ELT and this is noted in the comments at the end of Chapters 3 and 4. Once language studies and ELT are conjoined it is a small step to perceiving all such studies as being instrumental and therefore tainted by the market, globalization, and the commerical interests of the British Council. Of course, as Robert Scholes observes, this guarding of the literary domain is not unique to India and US ES departments are equally insular. Following on from John Guillory’s arguments on New Criticism, Scholes writes: [. . .] I entirely agree with him [Guillory] about this that the New Criticism functioned to construct for literature a safe place outside the pressures of the marketplace and the strict demands of scientific study (and above the realm of politics and social strife as well) in a lofty sphere of Arnoldian ‘disinterestedness.’ This realm was also, as he points out, a safe haven for professors, who had become a clergy without a dogma, teaching sacred texts without a God. (Scholes 1998, p. 27) Questions of safety and ‘disinterestedness’ are not, however, related solely to New Criticism as is evident in ES in India where some top-tier universities and colleges do teach and expect students to respond to Derrida or Foucault in translation while at the same time separating themselves and the discipline from translation, language studies, and linguistics. Translation was the subject of discussion during the debates recorded in Chapter 4. One point worth repeating is the way in which translated texts are taught in ES classes without awareness of their translatedness, i.e. not only are Indian writings read in translation but so are European classics, South American ones, or theoretical writings. Within the domain of Indian writings English is often the de facto base language although there is a thriving culture of translation within Indian languages. Indian texts in English translation have become a normalized aspect of ES. As a result a paradoxical monolingualism obtains whereby the dreaded ‘outside’ language becomes the means and medium of scholarship in institutions and structures which argue passionately for linguistic plurality.

Comparative Literature The situation outlined above resonates with the US within the field of Comparative Literature (CL), a discipline that is relatively rare in India. ES seems to have taken on aspects of CL but there are no language requirements in ES departments in India. Where CL programmes exist as in Jadavpur University languages other than English are required. In the US a committee chaired by Charles Bernheimer presented its decadal report to the American Comparative Literature Association (ACLA), ‘Comparative Literature at the Turn of the Century’ (1993). This dealt with issues of language competence, translation, multiculturalism, and interdisciplinarity. The committee recommended a broadening of

164  Chattarji and Allen the field of inquiry – already implemented by some programs and departments – [which] does not mean that comparative study should abandon the close analysis of rhetorical, prosodic, and other formal features, but that textually precise readings should take account as well of the ideological, cultural, and institutional contexts in which their meanings are produced’. (Bernheimer 1993) Further the report recommended a broadening of ‘linguistic horizons to encompass at least one non-European language’ not merely for the analysis of literary meaning but for their value for understanding the role of a native tongue in creating subjectivity, in establishing epistemological patterns, in imagining communal structures, in forming notions of nationhood, and in articulating resistance and accommodation to political and cultural hegemony. Moreover, comparatists should be alert to the significant differences within any national culture, which provide a basis for comparison, research, and critical-theoretical inquiry. Among these are differences (and conflicts) according to region, ethnicity, religion, gender, class, and colonial or postcolonial status. (Bernheimer 1993) The directions outlined are significant in that they acknowledge the Eurocentric orientation of the field with classical Greek and Latin, for example, as languages that a comparatist was expected to possess now being expanded to include Arabic or Hindi. This reorientation owes something to the social contexts within the US, particularly the ways in which the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 overturned earlier laws that had excluded Asian and African immigrants. Ethnic and racial minority populations grew from 25 per cent in 1990 to 36.6 per cent in 2010.4 The Bernheimer Report was addressing itself to these changing demographics, the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement and the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era, the teaching and theorizations of African-American, AsianAmerican, and women’s writings (within ES or separate departments). Theory was another major factor whose influence could not be ignored. The convergence of diverse political, ideological, theoretical forces and processes at a moment in the US transformed not only CL but ES and there are continuities between the two fields. In fact, some of the crisis debates surrounding ES in India echo the ones raised by CL in the US. The issue of translation and translated texts is dealt with by the Bernheimer Report: While the necessity and unique benefits of a deep knowledge of foreign languages must continue to be stressed, the old hostilities toward translation should be mitigated. In fact, translation can well be seen as a paradigm for larger problems of understanding and interpretation across different discursive traditions. Comparative Literature, it could be said, aims to explain both what is lost and what is gained in translations between the distinct value

English Studies in the US and India 165 systems of different cultures, media, disciplines, and institutions. Moreover, the comparatist should accept the responsibility of locating the particular place and time at which he or she studies these practices: Where do I speak from, and from what tradition(s), or counter-traditions? How do I translate Europe or South America or Africa into a North American cultural reality, or, indeed, North America into another cultural context? (Bernheimer 1993) It was partly in response to the Bernheimer Report and the crisis in CL that Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak offered a detailed counter vision of the discipline, based not in the metropolitan North but within the nuances of a global South. We must take the languages of the Southern Hemisphere as active cultural media rather than as objects of cultural study by the sanctioned ignorance of the metropolitan migrant. We cannot dictate a model for this from the offices of the American Comparative Literature Association. We can, however, qualify ourselves and our students to attend upon this as it happens elsewhere. [. . .] The most difficult thing here is to resist mere appropriation by the dominant. (Spivak 2004, pp. 9, 11) Spivak was careful to avoid ‘authoritative totalizing patterns depending on untested statements by small groups of people treated as native informants’ (Spivak 2004, p. 108) which would merely reiterate the flow of interpretative ideas from North to South, with the South as the ‘object’ of study. In contrast to the multiculturalism desired by the Bernheimer Report Spivak propounds collectivities: This is imagining yourself, really letting yourself be imagined (experience that impossibility) without guarantees, by and in another culture, perhaps. [. . .] To supplement Comparative Literature with (Comparative) Area Studies allows us to rethink mere national-origin collectivities. (Spivak 2004, pp. 52, 53) The difficulty of this imaginative leap is perhaps embodied in American Studies in the US in its transnational turn (see Kaplan and Pease 1993, Muthyala 2001, Edwards and Gaonkar 2010, Rowe, Joyce, and McBride 2011). While interdisciplinarity, blurring of boundaries, and the internationalization of American Studies are welcome there remain, as Edwards and Gaonkar point out, some intractable problems as ‘even in a multilateral world the United States remains paradigmatic. [. . .] Thus having initiated its own ‘post’, the United States must teach the rising rest the protocols of engaging the post-American century.’ (Edwards and Gaonkar, 2010, p. 25) The crisis in CL and American Studies in the US seem to be caught within this bind and yet the recognition of these contraries may allow for new insights and scholarship.

166  Chattarji and Allen

Ideological expectations ES and the Humanities generically function within social and ideological expectations in India and the US. In the US context Scholes observed: What this society wants of those who graduate from its schools and colleges with degrees in the humanities as opposed to what many of those who claim to speak for it say it wants are, at worst, docility and grammatical competence, at best, reliability and a high level of textual skills. What this society does not want from our educational institutions is a group of people imbued with critical skills and values that are frankly antagonistic to those that prevail in our marketplaces, courts, and legislative values. (Scholes 1998, p. 19. Italics in original) The desires that Scholes perceived in the late 1990s have been exacerbated in the years thereafter and translated into Indian contexts in terms that would be quite familiar to the US. The anxiety of ES mentioned earlier stems partially from a desire to imbue critical values in student communities but locates those values largely or solely within literary texts with little or no reference to language, linguistics, and concomitant networks of critical thinking. Within this context, Scholes’ advocacy for a destabilization of the language-literature hierarchy is apt: ‘Literacy involves the ability to understand and to produce a wide variety of texts that use the English language including work in the traditional literary forms, in the practical and persuasive forms, and in the modern media as well’ (Scholes 1998, p. 130). In his template for the revitalizing of ES Scholes offers the idea of ‘textual power’ which ‘includes the power to respond, to talk back, to write back, to analyze, to extend, to take one’s own textual position, in relation to Shakespeare or any kind of text’. ‘Textual power’ Scholes argues is conscious of class, gender, and race and works not towards the ‘Truth’ but offers a ‘way to truthfulness, which means both being honest about what we are doing and recognizing that the truths of the past should not be thrown out like garbage [. . .]’ (Scholes 1998, pp. 131, 151). For ES in India the ability ‘to talk back, to write back, to analyze’ is crucial if ES is to continue to play an important role in HE.

American Studies in India The crisis in ES whether in the US or in India seems, as English argues, to have been overstated. The contours of ES in both locations have been shaped and altered by debates surrounding critical issues such as curriculum, pedagogy, funding, student intake, credentialing, and professional integrity. In curricular terms ES in India seems to have moved to a more culture-studies frame. It is interesting that within this frame American literature and culture figure in a fairly consistent if conservative fashion. While the heyday of American Studies in India was the

English Studies in the US and India 167 1950s and 1960s with the American Studies Resource Center in Hyderabad as a hub for South Asia scholars in the field, there has been a distinct falling off in terms of institutional funding and research interest post the end of the Cold War. The American Centers in metropolitan cities in India serve largely as resource bases for students seeking admission in US universities and have minimal library resources. The Fulbright Commission is also geared toward maximizing student intake although it continues to offer Fulbright-Nehru fellowships in various fields. The fact that the Government of India now funds 50 per cent of these fellowships is indicative of changing economic relations and priorities with focus on management, rural development, women’s empowerment, and technology rather than on literary or historical study. A Curriculum Development Workshop at the UGC-Academic Staff College and the American Center New Delhi in December 2010 designed Diploma and Certificate Courses in American Studies that offered a broad spectrum of study areas: literature, popular culture, gender and trans-gender issues, foreign policy and international relations, conflict resolution, education, health, and environment. Areas for collaborative teaching across disciplines included slavery, 9/11 and its impact, multiculturalism, and diasporic literature (Charles et al. 2012). The implementation of this template is uncertain, but its vision is indicative of positive changes in American Studies in India. Despite this move, however, American Studies in India is a niche area dominated by the study of canonical literary texts by Hawthorne, Melville, Twain, Thoreau, Whitman and some twentieth-century writings by Toni Morrison or Steinbeck. American Studies is subsumed within ES and has not generated the sorts of debates regarding pedagogy or curriculum that one finds in ES in India or in American Studies in the US. Graff’s chapter ‘The Promise of American Literary Studies’ considers the field and the debates therein. Writing of early theorizations Graff observes: Despite their undeniable lack of interest in what would now be called the socially produced nature of American writing, the theorists of American literature did show a readiness to move from explication of particular works to larger statements about American culture as a whole, and this trait distinguishes them from many other scholars and explicators of their time. (Graff 2007, p. 223) The move toward considering ‘American culture as a whole’ led not just to more nuanced studies of the American imaginary in terms of race or gender but also to debates on transnational American Studies. Arguably the bulk of such studies are still US-centric and that is perhaps inevitable given its political and cultural influence. Nevertheless transnational American studies moves away from the template of the United States as the centre and its others as receptors, to more complex patterns of relations between the post-colony in its representations and regurgitations of ‘America’ in specifically localized contexts. As Winfried Fluck argues, ‘The good thing about transnational American studies is that it allows us to look at the United States no longer in an insular way but in terms of international embeddedness’ (Fluck 2011, p. 382). These are valuable arguments but they seem not to trouble

168  Chattarji and Allen ES in India. Perhaps this is attributable to the minor role American Studies plays in ES or to the lack of structural support such as the American Studies Association in the US (subject of some controversy for its 2014 vote to boycott Israeli universities that discriminate against Palestinian academics). ES in the US may be bedevilled by a sense of crisis but it is nevertheless a thriving, acrimonious, argumentative, active field endeavouring continually to think in complex ways about the field and its place in difficult times (and organizations such as the ASA or MLA foster such thinking). ES in India is also an acrimonious and argumentative field and perhaps its practitioners need to work toward collectives that may revitalize a sense of purpose and hope.

Notes 1 An hour in this context is defined as follows: ‘A credit hour is defined as at least twelve and a half hours of direct faculty instruction (in class or remote sites) with at least twenty-five hours of student work outside of that direct instruction, usually spread over fifteen weeks’ (American University 2014). 2 ‘The value of “marginalized” is that it foregrounds the political process rather than (as in “minor” or “marginal”) implicitly accepting its cultural consequences’ (Lauter 1991, p. 88). 3 ‘I will define literacy [. . .] throughout this book not simply as the capacity to read but as the systematic regulation of reading and writing, a complex social phenomenon corresponding to the following set of questions: Who reads? What do they read? How do they read? In what social and institutional circumstances? Who writes? In what social and institutional contexts? For whom?’ (Guillory 1993, p. 18) 4 See http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

References American University [Washington] (2014). ‘Undergraduate Studies: Academic Rules and Regulations’. http://www.american.edu/provost/undergrad/undergrad-rules-andregulations.cfm Anoka-Ramsey Community College (2014). ‘English Literature Emphasis – Associate in Arts Degree’. http://www.anokaramsey.edu/classes/Two-Year%20Degree%20 Programs/AADegree/EngLitAADeg.aspx Association of American Universities (2004). Reinvigorating the Humanities: Enhancing Research and Education on Campus and Beyond. http://www.aau.edu/ WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=6528 ASTD [American Society for Training & Development] (2012). ‘Bridging the Skills Gap’. http://nist.gov/mep/upload/Bridging-the-Skills-Gap_2012.pdf Bergen Community College (2014). ‘Tuition Fees for 2013–2014 Academic Year’. http://www.bergen.edu/current-students/bill-payment-bursar/tuition-fees-for2013-2014-academic-year Bernheimer, Charles (1993). ‘A Report to the ACLA: Comparative Literature at the Turn of the Century’. American Comparative Literature Association Report on Professional Standards. http://www.umass.edu/complit/aclanet/Bernheim.html Bloom, Harold (1994). The Western Canon: The Books and School of the Ages. New York, London: Harcourt Brace & Company.

English Studies in the US and India 169 Bousquet, Marc (2014). ‘The Moral Panic in Literary Studies’. The Chronicle of Higher Education (April 7). https://chronicle.com/article/The-Moral-Panic-inLiterary/145757/ Chace, William M. (2009). ‘The Decline of the English Department: How It Happened and What Could Be Done to Reverse It’. The American Scholar (Autumn). http:// theamericanscholar.org/the-decline-of-the-english-department/#.U9I6x7FD3IV Charles, E. S. et al. (2012). Diploma and Certificate Courses. http://photos.state. gov/libraries/india/13974/libpdfs/American%20Studies%20Booklet%20 Bookformat.pdf College Atlas (2014). Community Colleges Outperforming Universities. http://www. collegeatlas.org/community-college-benefits.html Devy, G. N. (1993). In Another Tongue: Essays on Indian English Literature. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Edwards, Brian T. and Dilip P. Gaonkar eds. (2010). Globalizing American Studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. English, James F. (2012). The Global Future of English Studies. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Florida State University (2014). ‘English’. http://www.academic-guide.fsu.edu/ English.html Fluck, Winfried (2011). ‘A New Beginning? Transnationalisms’, New Literary History 42. 365–84. Graff, Gerald (1987). Professing Literature: An Institutional History. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 2007. Guillory, John (1993). Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. IUB [Indiana University Bloomington] (2014). ‘General Education for Undergraduate Students’. http://gened.iub.edu/ Kaplan, Amy and Donald Pease eds. (1993). Cultures of U. S. Imperialism. Durham: Duke University Press. Klinkenborg, Verlyn (2013). ‘The Decline and Fall of the English Major’. New York Times (June 23). http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/thedecline-and-fall-of-the-english-major.html?_r=0 Lauter, Paul (1991). Canons and Contexts. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maricopa Community Colleges (2014). ‘Associate in Arts’. http://www.maricopa. edu/programs/index/show/id:8400 Michigan University (2014). ‘Community College Students’. http://admissions. umich.edu/apply/transfer-students/community-college-students Modern Language Association of America (2014). Task Force on Doctoral Study in Language and Literature. http://www.mla.org/pdf/taskforcedocstudy2014. pdf MSCHE [Middle States Commission for Higher Education] (2006). ‘Characteristics of Excellence in Higher Education’. http://www.msche.org/publications/CHX2011-WEB.pdf Muthyala, John. 2001. ‘Reworlding America: The Globalization of American Studies’. Cultural Critique 47 (Winter). 91–119. NAAC [National Assessment and Accreditation Council] (2013). ‘Manual for SelfStudy Report Affiliated / Constituent Colleges’. http://www.naac.gov.in/docs/ Affiliated%20Colleges%20-%2021.8.13.pdf

170  Chattarji and Allen New York Times (2013). ‘Stubborn Skills Gap in America’s Work Force’. (8 October) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/09/business/economy/stubborn-skillsgap-in-americas-work-force.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxn nlx=1411639531-iw58qoSVipmfKUF/tfAO2w New York Times (2014). ‘The Bane and the Boon of For-Profit Colleges’. (25 February) http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/26/business/economy/the-bane-and-theboon-of-for-profit-colleges.html Obama, Barack (2014). ‘Building American Skills through Community Colleges’. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education/higher-education/buildingamerican-skills-through-community-colleges Phoenix University (2014a). ‘Bachelor of Arts in English’. http://www.phoenix.edu/ programs/degree-programs/arts-and-sciences/bachelors/ba-eng.html#tab=overview Phoenix University (2014b). ‘Financial Plan Tool’. https://www.phoenix.edu/ tuition_and_financial_options/estimate-tuition-and-expenses.html#url=summary Princeton University (2014). ‘Student Budget’. http://www.princeton.edu/admission/ financialaid/cost/ Radhakrishnan, R. (2010). ‘Theory, Democracy, and the Public Intellectual’. PMLA 125:3 (May). 785–94. Rowe, John Carlos, Justin Joyce, and Dwight McBride eds. (2011). Re-Framing the Transnational Turn in American Studies. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press. Rutgers University (2014). ‘Annual Tuition and Fees’. http://admissions.rutgers. edu/costs/tuitionandfees.aspx Scholes, Robert (1998). The Rise and Fall of English: Reconstructing English as a Discipline. New Haven, CT and London: Yale University Press. Schulze-Engler, Frank and Sissy Helf (2009). ‘Introduction’. Transcultural English Studies: Theories, Fictions, Realities. ASNEL Papers 12. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi. Sheth, D. L. (2010). ‘The Great Language Debate: Politics of Metropolitan versus Vernacular’. In Asha Sarangi, ed. Language and Politics in India. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (2004). Death of a Discipline. Calcutta and New Delhi: Seagull Books. US Department of Education (2014). ‘Obama Administration Takes Action to Protect Americans from Predatory, Poor-Performing Career Colleges’. http:// www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administration-takes-action-protectamericans-predatory-poor-performing-ca Wall Street Journal (2014). ‘Skills Gap Bumps up against Vocational Taboo’. (12 September) http://online.wsj.com/articles/skills-gap-bumps-up-against-vocationaltaboo-1410473392

9 English Studies in India, global English Studies and globalization Suman Gupta

Global English Studies The broader disciplinary context in which this volume, and the project it arose from, was conceived and undertaken is obviously a global one. This part has thus far examined Indian English Studies (ES) with a comparative view of ES in the UK and USA. In this final chapter I attempt to place ES in Indian higher education (HE) now within the global field, commenting on the extent to which the global spread of the discipline has been registered in and otherwise impinged upon disciplinary – especially pedagogic – practices. James English’s The Global Future of English Studies (2012) gives a useful comparative description of student recruitment figures, career trajectories, and curricular emphases for ES in various countries across five continents. Unfortunately, its coverage of the Indian situation is inadequate – but some of the more general observations, with its wide-ranging research in view, are noteworthy. One of these is that, the major zone of variability among the world’s English departments: [is] the extent to which they incorporate linguistics and language study. There are universities, even entire national systems, where courses in English language study and/or linguistic theory constitute half or more of the required credits for an English baccalaureate degree. And there are other universities in other countries where the English BA curriculum is entirely free of all such requirements and where even electives in the field are scarce or non-existent. (English 2012, p. 116) This tacitly assumes – and it is an unsurprising assumption in a predominantly Anglophone context – that English departments generally engage with literary and cultural study. As observed on numerous occasions in this volume, in India (which is not predominantly Anglophone) a similar assumption has largely held. English’s observation offers a way into considering Indian ES in the current global context. The balance of literature and cultural study on the one hand and language and linguistics on the other that is being negotiated in India is

172  Gupta pertinent to how the discipline itself is being reconceived and grounded in the global context. The body of this chapter is therefore presented in two sections: English literary and cultural study in India apropos the global context, and the study of English language and linguistics in relation to the global purchase of English. My treatment of these two directions is necessarily cursory; the complexity of Indian HE and the fluid character of ES render it so. The fluid character of ES in pedagogic and scholarly terms is variously noted, especially with the global remit of the discipline in view. Rob Pope’s Studying English Language and Literature (2012), which in earlier editions was simply entitled The English Studies Book (1998), is eloquent testimony to the struggle to include everything that the discipline may contain within two covers. In a way, the change of title in the third edition is itself an admission of defeat, or a concession to making its coverage smaller than everything ES could incorporate. Some of the areas that Pope leaves out are cursorily treated in McComiskey ed., English Studies (2006): this conceives of the discipline as consisting of several parallel strands in addition to the study of literature and language/ linguistics, including language teaching (applied linguistics), creative writing, rhetoric, and composition. The latter therefore argues for ‘reimagining English Studies as a coherent community of disciplines’ rather than a single discipline (McComiskey 2006, p. 41). Inclusive as these volumes seek to be, they are nevertheless presumptively centred in the Anglophone-dominant contexts they appeared in, the UK and USA respectively. In other contexts, like the Indian, ES has naturally come to be structured differently – different emphases in selections and analyses of textual material and analytical perspectives are evident, and different balances are found. It is impossible to lay out a meaningful grid of all that constitutes global ES, whereby contextually distinct features can be neatly and comparatively mapped. Perhaps a more helpful way of thinking about this is to take an institutional view: ES consists of whatever is regarded as the professional concern of HE English teachers and English departments. In India, as elsewhere, conventionally English departments have been concerned with literary and linguistic study. As the discipline has expanded across the globe, being adapted and wrought to purpose in various nation-states, English departments have either reoriented these two strands to accommodate new directions or new directions have departed from those strands and carved out separate niches alongside. Thus, in English departments in various contexts Anglophone cultural studies/translation studies/language teaching/creative writing/media studies etc. have either been integrated with literary and linguistic study or allocated discrete spaces depending on contextual exigency. That process of reorientation and accommodation can still be apprehended then in relation to the two conventional strands within the institutional space of ES. The following charts some of the processes of reorientation and accommodation in relation to the two strands, and seeks thereby to clarify something of the relation of Indian ES to the global remit of the discipline.

Global English Studies and globalization 173

Literature and culture In the course of and following the crisis debates discussed in Chapter 1, curricula for English degrees (at BA and MA level) expanded significantly in most sectors of HE, particularly across the range of established universities with liberal arts faculties. The areas addressed by researchers in English departments, graduate students or staff, expanded correspondingly. In the first instance this occurred mainly within the precincts of literary studies, by taking in a broader range of literary genres than heretofore (including the conventionally neglected popular fiction, children’s literature, life writing, docudrama, etc.), texts with diverse identity-based perspectives (in terms of gender, caste, race), with different modes of textual transmission and media in view (incorporating elements of book history, reception studies, film studies, electronic media, etc.), and with attention to critical theory (which encouraged interdisciplinary exploration in politics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, etc.). Interesting as the full scale of this expansion is, this chapter’s particular interest in Indian ES amidst the discipline’s global scope encourages me to focus on one dimension: expansion in geopolitical perspective. In this direction, additions to curricula and scholarship were significant. Some of the thrust of the crisis debates of the 1990s had derived from the inadequacy of ES syllabi which centred on British and North American literature. Reflecting developments in Anglo-American academia, a growing interest in texts produced and circulating in postcolonial contexts understandably had a notable impact on Indian ES – mostly symptomatically in ‘postcolonial literature’ courses and occasionally in courses addressed to specific postcolonial zones (continents and countries). These moves initially concentrated on texts written in English (that is from the Anglophone postcolonial sphere), but gradually took in translations too, or addressed the politics of translation squarely. As texts translated into English became an increasingly normalized part of the curriculum, English departments also extended their purview to comparative literature and the renewed vogue for ‘world literature’. A few courses with wider than Anglophone or postcolonial interests, mediated through translations and eschewing traditional expectations of comparative study through two or more original languages, appeared in English syllabi in various Indian universities at BA and MA level. British and North American literature, however, remained a key part of the curriculum – albeit with more attention to the peripheries thereof (Irish, Scottish, Canadian, Hispanic). One result of the crisis debates was a significantly broader geopolitical perspective within ES in India, tendentiously of global proportions. In this the pursuit of the discipline in India appeared to be consistent with the shape the discipline was assuming more widely, evincing a convergence between English literary studies and comparative/world literature (I had discussed this in Globalization and Literature 2009, Ch. 6). The 1990s crisis debates had interrogated the conventional centring of British and North American literature in the ES curriculum because it alienated students from their immediate social concerns, within their Indian habitus – the

174  Gupta arguments are outlined in Ch. 1. So, while a tendentiously global perspective seemed to be opened up within Indian English Studies with the crisis debates, a reactive and putatively stronger inwardness also developed within disciplinary pursuits. The dispersal of geopolitical perspective that extends across the globe coincided with an intensification of geopolitical perspective which delves into the Indian nation-state itself, paying closer attention to regional and linguistic diversities within. This move was called for variously from the 1970s onwards (from proposals made by Ghose 1978 and Mukherjee 1978 to those in Trivedi 1993), and became concomitant with postcolonial studies; naturally, the analytical possibilities which postcolonial theory offered seemed of immediate moment to get to grips with the internal social and political dynamics of India itself. While postcolonial literature courses proliferated with an eye on the larger postcolonial sphere, these were shouldered along the same rationale by courses in Indian literature within the ES curriculum. Initially (through the early 1990s), Indian literature in the ES curriculum meant critical engagement with texts written in English by Indians or within India. That the discipline became accustomed to translations was unsurprisingly regarded as offering particular opportunities amidst the linguistic diversity of the country, perhaps more so in English departments than in the departments of other Indian languages with stronger regional footholds. Postcolonial nationalism played its part alongside postcolonial globalism (and, increasingly, deregulated capitalist globalization). To some degree English curricula and the academic engagements of English departments gradually moved towards becoming, and are now significantly, spaces for comparative studies involving literatures in Indian languages and English, or such literatures mediated by English translation and commentary. This is so, I suspect, to a more considerable extent than is the case with the tendentiously global perspectives. In brief, comparative Indian literary study probably has a stronger purchase now than the study of a wider comparative literature or world literature or even postcolonial literature in ES – though the conventional British and North American emphasis has retained a steady presence. These are impressionistic observations, but are largely borne out by consulting syllabi on university websites. The four dominant geopolitically defined literary components of current undergraduate English (Honours) syllabi are: British and North American literature, postcolonial literature, Indian literatures in English or English translation, and something akin to rest-of-the-world literature in English translation (mostly European). These appear with different balances in undergraduate ES syllabi, with British and North American literatures continuing to dominate within an increasingly restricted space. In terms of dissertations at PhD level and research publications by academic staff in English departments, the space occupied by squarely British or North American literary topics is now relatively marginal. In fact, postcolonial literary texts or translated texts from outside the Indian domain also feature marginally – usually as a point of comparison (in a comparative literature vein) with texts in English of Indian provenance or in Indian languages. The latter dominate as the subject matter for dissertations and scholarly publications associated with ES in India. This too is an impressionistic observation, based on

Global English Studies and globalization 175 consulting faculty pages and PhD dissertation topic listings of Indian universities’ websites, where they are publicly accessible (see also p. 53 above). It is subject to more rigorous confirmation, but seems generally accepted as plausible in India – and, by and large, regarded as a necessary and salutary development. At the higher level of ES, it appears that the inward turn occupies substantial attention while the global or even broadly postcolonial perspective has a fairly light or conditional hold. Insofar as the geopolitical spread of curriculum-based pedagogies goes, the ‘field survey’ approach continues to underpin offerings at undergraduate levels and beyond. In this context, that means that the modules/courses which make up English syllabi often claim to survey a discrete field. Where such modules/ courses come with geopolitical descriptors or are focused on linguistic territory (such as Indian English literature, Indian literature, British literature, Australian literature, European literature, Hindi literature, and even postcolonial or World Literature) it is tacitly suggested that the texts studied are representative of the described field, and the field in question has an essential and distinctive integrity. While the imagined or constructed contours of that field may be interrogated in teaching the courses, its viability as field is presumptively accepted – and it is tacitly suggested that the sampling of texts listed in the module/course is able to convey the field sufficiently. Concomitantly, the different fields thus characterized may overlap but simultaneously acquire, through curricular structuring, a patchwork-quilt quality of geopolitically described units which rub shoulders with each other but do not quite talk to each other. The porosity of geopolitical boundaries, the cultural and linguistic admixtures and adaptations and hybridities, the continuous dynamic of flows between languages and localities which undergird almost all literature and literary history and cultural domains are elided in favour of constantly opposed geopolitical binaries and a conceptual precedence of bound space. So, the ‘field survey’ approach packages postcolonial contexts and the world as a collage of national cultures, each nation as possessed of a precedent reality which is distinct from others, the regions within India as a collage of discrete identities, and all as resolvable by questionable literary contrasts – India and the West, India and the rest, the nation and the provinces, Europe and postcolony, globalized and indigenous culture, and so on. In both the directions dubbed as a broadly global extension and an inward turn above, the ‘field survey’ approach to the ES curriculum poses a substantial challenge of sheer quantity. Whether curricular reach expands to the world or intensifies within India, and thereby multiplies geopolitical fields to be surveyed and sampled in both directions, the syllabus seems to teeter on the edge of always being wanting and always containing more than can be taken in, on the verge of becoming unmanageable. Possibly the most influential critique of the ‘field survey’ approach to literary pedagogy appeared in Gerald Graff’s history of ES in the USA, Professing Literature (1987). In a rare moment of misgiving about the inclusive (i.e. with an expanding set of ‘field survey’ courses) English literature syllabi appearing in India after the crisis debates (around the late 1990s), Prem Poddar (2002) had

176  Gupta cited Graff’s arguments. Graff’s sense of the ‘field survey’ approach was not really about geopolitical territories as fields but literary critical ‘schools’ (philological, modern, New Critical etc.) as fields. His own approach to literary pedagogy and scholarship, by contrast, dwelled upon centring ‘conflicts’ – highlighting not discrete fields of criticism but a continuum of dynamic confrontations and debates between different ideological and methodological positions. In ‘teaching the conflicts’, as he called it, the stability of boundaries gives way to processes of intellectual exchange which constantly blur boundaries and even erase them. Graff’s notion of ‘teaching the conflicts’ can be transferred to geopolitical coverage without much difficulty: it would involve thinking of literature not in terms of discrete spaces which can be sampled, but in terms of literary transmissions and exchanges which blur putative ascriptions of fortified and impervious geopolitical zones (whether national, continental, or ideologically cohesive). However, these possibilities have seldom been explored in any context of ES – and haven’t been in Indian ES. Both the dispersed global extensions and the intensifying inward gaze of ES in India have cultivated contending proliferations of ‘field survey’ courses and a schismatic literary curriculum which seems either ready to burst or precipitately deflate. The tension in ES in India which I am charting here – the tension between extending a global perspective and cultivating an intensive inward (national) gaze – appears particularly in scholarship regarding the principal mediating activity for both sides: translation. Debates about accommodating Translation Studies within ES, as the business of English departments, have been marked by the same contrary pulls; and here too the inward thrust has gradually taken precedence over the broader aspiration. With the growing vogue for Translation Studies as a distinctive academic area in the mid-1990s, it became something of a truism that translation has been predominantly conceived according to a dominant ‘Western model’ which doesn’t quite apply to the fluidly multilingual Indian context. In a 1997 Meta special issue on Indian Translation Studies, Indra Nath Choudhuri thus observed: The major difference between translation practices in the West and translation practices in India is that in the West translation is considered a complicated linguistic and literary act, while in India it is an inevitable way of life. In the West translation has been subjected to scrutiny from a variety of [theoretical] perspectives [. . .]. In India, in contrast, the focus has been more on the pragmatic aspects of translation. (Choudhuri 1997, p. 442) This argument constructed two counter-posed sides: on the one hand, the pragmatic and fluid everydayness of multilingualism and translation practices in India; on the other hand, the comparatively monolingual character of Western contexts, wherein translation is an academic matter, grasped in directional terms (from target to source), and is complicit with the workings of top-down power. This argument has been pressed consistently in Indian Translation Studies since (to cite a

Global English Studies and globalization 177 few instances: Kothari 2003, pp. 38–40 and passim; Wakabayashi and Kothari 2009, pp. 12–13; and Prasad 2010, pp. 11–12). The polarized constructions of Western and Indian attitudes to translation are, arguably, more revealing of language politics within India than in the West. Actually, this argument gestures tangentially towards the position of English in India: what happens in English apropos translation is taken as the norm of Western attitudes to translation within India; and, concurrently, what is perceived as happening in English happens largely within India. There are relatively few projects where Indian Translation Studies have engaged translations from other languages into Indian languages or translations between two Indian languages. To an overwhelming extent, Indian Translation Studies have been anxiously preoccupied with the relationship of English to Indian vernaculars. The polarized construction of models of translation symptomatizes two levels of anxiety about the position of English in India. Firstly, from a historical perspective, the inculcation of English is rightly understood as complicit with the nineteenth-century project of organizing Indian texts and knowledge so as to comply with British colonial power. The history of translation from Indian languages into English is accordingly thought of as a means of subjugation. The argument from polarized models therefore gestures towards that history, suggesting that the colonial relationship persists in the ‘political unconscious’ of academic discourse, if not in the everyday life, of postcolonial India. Secondly, in view of post-independence developments, the English language is understood to be complicit with the political and cultural domination of an elite professional and bureaucratic class, a minority of the Indian population. The uneven flow of translations between English and Indian languages, favouring the former, reflects the domination of this English-using minority. A number of scholars with a significant investment in bringing Translation Studies within Indian English literary studies, and representing Indian Translation Studies internationally (under postcolonial studies) have broadly subscribed to the argument outlined above. Several of them appeared in the 1997 Meta special issue cited, and consistently thereafter in relevant publications. Scholarly debates around this argument were engaged in several directions, all replete with anxieties about English in India while being aired in forums to do with ES and being accommodated in pedagogy and scholarship grounded in English departments. Finally, it is not only in the content of English literary studies in Indian HE that the contrary pulls of looking outwards and inwards are found. To a significant extent, pedagogic and scholarly pursuits respond to the larger sphere of Anglophone literary productions and circulations rather than simply being driven by academic rationales. The manner in which the publishing industry and market for English books has come to be structured in India has a bearing on how the discipline of English literary studies is shaped; in many ways, the impact of globalization processes on the discipline is perhaps most cogently understood accordingly. Through the 1990s and onwards Indian literary publishing in English has seen impressive growth. The conventional circuit of English literary books reaching India from publishers based in the UK and USA has shifted to books being

178  Gupta published and marketed to a very significant extent inside India. This also means that the kind of literary books in the English language that has gradually come to dominate the market has changed, predominantly in favour of texts by Indian authors (in English or in English translation) addressed to the Indian context. In terms of absolute figures publishing in India is an increasingly large and diverse sector. Pathak (2011) gives a reasonably good account of it, noting both its scale and some of its problems. At the end of 2007, he notes, the number of publishers registered with the ISBN India agency were 12,375, with an estimated 90,000 titles being produced each year, and with the industry showing an optimistic growth estimate of 30 per cent. Pathak also comments on infrastructural paucities, particularly in distribution and retailing. The English-language element in this has strong visibility because it is in English and therefore easy to access internationally. International interest in the Indian publishing industry, which is primarily with regard to English-language production, is evidenced in various ways. Most significantly, the operations of Indian subsidiaries of international publishing corporations enjoy a considerable media and commercial presence. The Association of Publishers in India (API), the representative body of such publishers, listed 27 members for 2010–2011. Beyond that, international interest is charted through: various market reports commissioned abroad (by, for instance, the US Department and the British Council/Publishers Association); particular attention at book fairs (Indian publishers have featured significantly in the Frankfurt and Paris Book Fairs); and other initiatives (e.g. in 2010 the British Council established the YCE Publishing Award to enable young publishers in India to network in the UK). These ventures have spurred literary productions within India which are of particular interest to the Indian market. These might be regarded as signs of the globalization (and certainly of a growing global presence) of the Indian publishing industry, but that does not mean Indian literary productions in English (the product) now have a global presence. Even the most commercially successful literary books produced in India have circulated predominantly within the country and travelled indifferently elsewhere, if at all. The international publishers in India are there to generate profits by entering the Indian reading market, not by opening up Indian products to an international market. The great bulk of English language texts of Indian provenance produced by Penguin India, Harper Collins India, Hachette India, and so on, are only distributed within India. The international reports and initiatives mentioned above stemmed more from the desire of international publishers to be able to mould and exploit both Indian products and the Indian reading market, rather than from any intention of generating Indian products which can be used to exploit the international Anglophone market. The idea is to set up an internal cycle of production and consumption which international publishers can tap into, rather than to make Indian literary production a global commodity. While globalization of the Indian book industry for English-language texts unfolds in this fashion, the localized products (texts) themselves are produced and circulated within a contained national or local sphere. Such localization of practice is evidently in the service of globalization for the publishing industry; it

Global English Studies and globalization 179 is the local circuit and product instrumentalized for structural globalization and global corporations. On the ground, this is experienced in India as an escalation of production and growing ease of access to locally relevant literary works in English or English translation – relative to literary works originating and published outside India in English or English-translation (unless those are already tried and tested in Anglophone markets and can be marketed on the back of proven commercial success). What is easily available and affordable and in the news is naturally a considerable incentive to inclusion in the curriculum, and unsurprisingly feeds the expanding inward turn while restricting the extension of a global or extrinsic literary perspective. The shape of literary publishing and marketing thus seem to gel with the tendencies noted above at the level of curriculum and scholarship. These observations on English literary studies are, however, subject to some crucial revision, in that the centring of literature and cultural studies in ES in Indian HE is under interrogation. Of late, scholarly attention to the English language has made unprecedented inroads into how the broad discipline is understood in India.

Linguistics and language teaching Much of the broad field of linguistics is not necessarily focused on specific language-formations like English, especially since the early twentieth-century shift from philological towards general linguistics. It is predominantly in sociolinguistics (particularly social discourse analysis) and some related areas of corpus linguistics and stylistics that a specific language-formation like English may be centred, and in some sectors of the often fuzzily described field of applied linguistics (where concerned with teaching/learning a language and language proficiency). So, it is within that remit that an area which could be characterized as English linguistics figures. Within this limited frame, English linguistics has been fairly important insofar as globalization processes are registered and analysed within the broad field of linguistics. The reasons for this scarcely need to be enumerated; the global dispersal of the English language as dominant second language and language of commerce, the media, and science – largely due to the colonizing power of Britain and the neo-imperialist power of the USA – are widely recognized. Much ink has been expended on both the repressive and the emancipative directions of that dispersal. The complex place of the English language in India, considered variously throughout this volume, has naturally been of some interest in linguistic appraisal of the globalization of English, or perhaps more accurately, the dominance of English in globalization processes. The significant 1980s move to conceive of the linguistic formation of English not in terms of dominant native centres (mainly UK and USA) or in terms of an elusive (tacitly UK and USA again) standard, but in terms of multiplicities – as World Englishes (with that marked plural) – is a case in point. This move came from several directions: Manfred Görlach founded and became editor of the journal English World-Wide from November 1980, and had

180  Gupta already established a book series in 1979, Varieties of English around the World; the journal World Language English was re-launched in the July 1985 issue as World Englishes under the editorship of Braj Kachru and Larry E. Smith. The coinage ‘World Englishes’ is now mainly associated with Kachru, who tried to formulate it with a national basis in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Tom McArthur founded and started editing the journal English Today beginning from January 1985, and contributed to debates around World Englishes – and was later to give the most lucid account of those debates and their implications (McArthur 1998). Kachru’s part in this has been especially significant, as McArthur observed somewhat critically; Kachru’s intervention was received as grounded in a postcolonial sensibility, based on scholarship which was significantly invested in characterizing the Indian variety (varieties, really) of English or Indian English (in articles collected in Kachru 1983). It underpinned attempts to describe Indian English as a standard or ‘acrolect’ thereafter (along lines followed from, e.g. Sridhar 1989 and Parasher 1991 to, recently, Sailaja 2009) which comprehends the nation and variations within the nation. Later critiques of the Kachru model of World Englishes (especially of its national basis) have had, however, relatively little purchase in the study of English linguistics in India. For instance, Alastair Pennycook’s (2007) account of Global Englishes, offering a perspective more attuned to the unregulated and ground-level movements and transactions in English (attuned to a kind of ‘globalization from below’) might be referred to occasionally but seldom integrated with constructions of Indian English. The anti-imperialist tenor of Pennycook’s thinking and that of other linguists (notably Robert Philipson) have been influential in sociolinguistic scholarship on English in India. (Sociolinguistic and discourse analytical approaches to English in India have been variously mentioned above in this volume, see for example Chapter 4, Session 5.) To take a related but distinct tack, descriptions of English language usage using large-scale corpora is another area of scholarship through which the global spread of specifically the English language has been accounted. Randolph Quirk’s quest for an ‘educated’ standard through the Survey of English Usage (SEU) corpus, undertaken with a few mutations from 1959 to 1985, however expansively and liberally intended, was almost inevitably open to the scepticism of postcolonial nationalisms. With the turn towards World Englishes, it was followed by the International Corpus of English (ICE) project, initiated from 1990 by Sidney Greenbaum and still ongoing. The Indian contribution to this (ICE India Corpus), led by S. V. Shastri, appeared in 2002 – Shastri had already attempted a similar corpus-based project in 1978 (Kohlapur Corpus of Indian English or KCIE). Characterizations of Indian English by integrating several such corpora have continued to appear since (e.g. Sedlatschek 2009, Lange 2012). Such scholarship into the place of English in India against a global context of English language usage may be expected to figure significantly in ES in India, and may well have come to be indicative of how ES in India is located amidst global ES. However, it has been literature and not linguistics that has dominated ES: i.e. dominated in pedagogy leading to English degrees, research under English departments, public perception of what the discipline consists in. So,

Global English Studies and globalization 181 this scholarship into Indian varieties of English and global Englishes has largely been nurtured away from the designated space of English departments, within the precincts of distinct linguistics departments (i.e. general linguistics or linguistics broadly understood), or at the neglected margins of English departments. It has figured rarely in any English Honours or Masters syllabus. Even in linguistics departments, teachers and researchers with interests in ELT or English language teaching (this dimension of applied linguistics) have often felt beleaguered by the strong centring of literary study. So, for instance, a 1997 study of English language pedagogy in India by applied linguists R. K. Agnihotri and A. L. Khanna, based on surveys and consultation with a wide range of language teachers, offered the following conclusion (based on what their informants suggested): The space called English should not be identified exclusively with the British literature. It should overcome the language-literature divide, paying equal attention to both. It should include not only literature written in countries where English is spoken as a native language but also of countries where it is widely used as a second language. It should also include Indian languages and literature written in them. The future English classroom in India should become a centre for a comparative study of discourse types and genres in different languages. (Agnihotri and Khanna 1997, p. 141) Indicatively, while making a plea for more space for language teaching this nevertheless dwells on what sort of literature should be taught, and it is tacitly assumed that teaching the language would necessarily take place predominantly through literary texts in the future English classroom. When, eventually, the politics and function of the English language in India became the business of English departments, it was not linguistics scholarship of the descriptive or sociolinguistic or stylistic sort that came into focus. It was the purely functional business of ELT and its various special categories (for academic purposes, business purposes etc.) that moved into the frame and became the principal challenger to centring literature and cultural studies in English departments. In the wake of the crisis debates and interrogations of the discipline in the 1990s, and with the ground-level changes described in the first chapter, the need for structured ELT at all levels began to be pressed. The debate was conducted squarely between two distinct camps: those who advocated retaining literature at the core of English Studies and those who maintained that language pedagogy should be given a distinctive and separate emphasis (a partisan view of this debate is found in Narasimhaiah 2002, an impassioned exponent of the former camp). This debate remains centre-stage at present, and much of this volume is really about this debate. In other words, in the field of English linguistics another manifestation of the contrary pulls of an inward turn and a global perspective within the department has been played out. As with regard to literature and cultural studies (outlined in the previous section), here too the inward turn (the salience of ELT for functional social reasons within the national domain) has overtaken the potentialities

182  Gupta of a larger global perspective (implicit in considering Indian English alongside Global Englishes) in disciplinary practices. The policy thrust that has encouraged the move towards foregrounding functional ELT as the task of English departments and as an essential component of ES in India, are detailed in Chapter 2 and variously in the discussions recorded in Part II. To reiterate the main point, the most recent 12th Five Year Plan (2012– 2017) states the instrumental nature of English in HE more unambiguously than any previous five year plan: 21.244. Notwithstanding the growth of technical higher education, over half of students will enrol in general (meaning arts, science and commerce) undergraduate programmes. If properly imparted, general education could be an excellent foundation for successful knowledge-based careers. Therefore, focus should be primarily on improving the quality of general education. [. . .]. Special emphasis on verbal and written communication skills, especially, but not limited to, English would go a long way in improving the employability of the large and growing mass of disempowered youth. (Planning Commission 2013, Vol. 3, p. 106) This observation in the largest-scale policy document that the Government of India produces is the culmination of a constant refrain in other policy documents. The recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission’s Report to the Nation 2006–2009 (2010), for instance, was premised repeatedly on the notion that ‘An understanding and command over the English language is a most important determinant of access to higher education, employment possibilities and social opportunities’ (esp. pp. 27–8). The federal government’s drive in this regard is strongly supported by various reports from the corporate sector in India (I have mentioned this above), the ‘employers’ who are seemingly regarded as the principal ‘stakeholders’ in HE at present. In a way, this policy drive also gels with globalization processes, since encouragement for this policy direction also comes from agencies outside India, especially from Anglophone dominant contexts (UK, USA, Australia). To take the British example: the British Council has set up a number of initiatives with Indian HE institutions addressed to ELT. On the surface these are presented as publicspirited and even altruistic; but public-spiritedness in the UK, as in India and elsewhere, is increasingly impossible to distinguish from private-spiritedness and business-orientation. So, the British Council India also organizes events such as the UK–India English Partnership Forum of 30 January 2013 in London, entitled Opportunities in English Language. It needs little perspicacity to gather that the ‘opportunities’ in question were really for a range of British (in partnership with Indian, of course) companies which could, in various ways, sell English language skills training. The forum was usefully bolstered with a report funded by the British High Commission in India and produced by iValue, ELT Market Report for India (2013), and by the partnership of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the UK Trade and Industry (UKTI), and the Department for Business Innovation

Global English Studies and globalization 183 and Skills (BIS). A more general British Council pamphlet Understanding India: The Future of Higher Education and Opportunities for International Cooperation (Feb. 2014) features English as a commodity frequently and throughout. Thus encouraged, government education policy and directives are now aligned with the interests of corporate sector and external agencies in demanding a ‘reorientation’ of the work of ES – English teachers and departments – in HE institutions. This demand is steadily percolating downwards through the University Grants Commission (UGC) and state-level education ministries towards implementation at institutional level, in universities and HE colleges and institutes. Since the top-down pressure in this regard falls upon English departments and teachers, it is the shape of ES at HE itself which is under scrutiny. The emphasis on literature that has prevailed for much of the history of ES in India, traced sketchily above, necessarily has to – and does – give way: the quotient of literature has to be proportionally reduced to make way for English literacy in the work of English teachers and departments in universities. The last attempt, fifteen years back, made by the UGC to give guidance on university ES programmes and their contents (UGC Curriculum Development Committee Feb. 2001) consequently seems firmly dated now with its strong literary and cultural studies focus.

Prognostications In considering future possibilities for ES in Indian HE, it is not my intention to give a normative cast to the above observations; whether ongoing developments are good or bad is not for me to judge. The future possibilities are simply possible outcomes of current trends, which may change as trends change. First, Applied Linguistics (focused on ELT as an instrumental programme) seems set to grow within the existing institutional spaces of ES – within English departments – in the near future. This would be encouraged by market demand, government and corporate initiative, and concentration of investment, as well as by international academic and business entities. It is possible that eventually Applied Linguistics (focused on ELT) will break away from the mainstream of ES and assume an independent institutional identity, marked by separate departments. Second, correspondingly scholarship and pedagogy in what has conventionally been ES (literature, linguistics, cultural studies) is likely to become more contained: appealing to a smaller intake of students/researchers and justifying smaller departments – perhaps also perceived as more socially remote, in a way, from where the discipline was after the crisis debates in the 1990s. The elite interests served by English proficiency and cultivation of ES thus far will take longer to dissipate, if at all; in that process, English may lose its cultural (and financial) capital to some degree. Third, the powerful drive towards vocationalizing/professionalizing HE will be felt increasingly unevenly on all aspects of ES. So long as Applied Linguistics (focused on ELT) remains or appears to be a subsection of ES – i.e. the business of English departments – that subsection will draw investment, perhaps to the advantage of ES generally. If Applied Linguistics subsections broke away from ES and became separate institutional entities

184  Gupta (departments), and formed independent professional bodies, the remnant ES would still have to find ways to survive in an environment where resources are allocated according to vocational/professional measures and market demand. In due course, this remnant of ES may have to reorient itself again to become more market-friendly, perhaps by cultivating firmer application through entertainment, mass media, heritage, and other industries. However, outlining future directions in this manner is no more than an expression of the present. Such prognostications are not prophecies but ways of putting the present situation into perspective and responding to trends which seem discernible now.

References Agnihotri, R. K. and A. L. Khanna (1997). Problematizing English in India. Delhi: Sage. British Council (2014 Feb.). Understanding India: The Future of Higher Education and Opportunities for International Cooperation. London: British Council. http:// www.britishcouncil.org/sites/britishcouncil.uk2/files/understanding_india_ report.pdf Choudhuri, Indra Nath (1997). ‘The Plurality of Languages and Literature in Translation: The Post-Colonial Context’. Meta: journal des traducteurs / Meta: Translators’ Journal, 42:2. 439-43. English, James F. (2012). The Global Future of English Studies. Chichester: WileyBlackwell. Ghose, Sisirkumar (1978). ‘The Future of English Studies in India: A Note’. In Manuel and Paniker eds. (1978). 153–9. Graff, Gerald (1987). Professing Literature: An Institutional History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gupta, Suman (2009). Globalization and Literature. Cambridge: Polity. iValue (commissioned by the British High Commission of India) (2013). ELT Market Report for India. It was available online only during February–April at http:// ukindia.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=PressR&id=854007482 Kachru, Braj B. (1983). The Indianization of English. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Kothari, Rita (2003). Translating India. Delhi: Foundation. Lange, Claudia (2012). The Syntax of Spoken Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. McArthur, Tom (1998). The English Languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McComiskey, Bruce (2006). English Studies: An Introduction to the Discipline(s). London: National Council of Teachers of English. Manuel, M. and K. Ayyappa Paniker eds. (1978). In English and India. Madras: Macmillan. Mukherjee, Meenakshi (1978). ‘Teaching Literature to a Sub-culture’. In Manuel and Paniker eds. (1978). 125–31. Narasimhaiah, C. D. (2002). ‘Language-Literature Controversy’. English Studies in India: Widening Horizons. Delhi: Pencraft. 242–62. National Knowledge Commission (2010) Report to the Nation 2006–2009. New Delhi: Government of India. http://www.knowledgecommission.gov.in/downloads/ report2009/eng/report09.pdf. Accessed July 2014.

Global English Studies and globalization 185 Parasher, S. V. (1991). Indian English: Function and Form. Delhi: Bahri. Pathak, Akshay (2011). ‘When Markets Commission’. Himal Southasian 24:5 (May): 34–7. Pennycook, Alastair (2007). Global Englishes and Transcultural Flows. Abingdon: Routledge. Planning Commission (2013). Twelfth Five Year Plan (2012–2017): Social Sectors: Volume III. New Delhi: Sage. http://planningcommission.gov.in/plans/ planrel/12thplan/pdf/12fyp_vol3.pdf Poddar, Prem (2002). Violent Civilities: English, India, Culture. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press. Pope, Rob (2012). [The English Studies Book] Studying English Language and Literature. 3rd edition. London: Routledge (1st edition 1998). Prasad, G. J. V. ed. (2010). Translation and Culture: Indian Perspectives. Delhi: Pencraft. Sailaja, Pingali (2009). Indian English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Sedlatschek, Andreas (2009). Contemporary Indian English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Sridhar, Kamal K. (1989). English in Indian Bilingualism. Delhi: Manohar. Trivedi, Harish (1993). ‘Panchadhatu: Teaching English Literature in the Indian Literary Context’. Colonial Transactions. Calcutta: Papyrus. UGC Curriculum Development Committee (2001 Feb.). Recommendations of the Curriculum Development Committee for English and Other Western Languages http://www.ugc.ac.in/oldpdf/modelcurriculum/western.pdf Wakabayashi, J. and R. Kothari eds (2009) Decentring Translation Studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Appendix Table presentation of survey questionnaire results

Part I Demographics 1. Which college/university are you in? Rajdhani College, DU Deshbandu College, DU Jesus and Mary College, DU Kamla Nehru College, DU Shri Ram College, DU Bharti College, DU St Stephen’s College, DU College of Vocational Studies, DU Mata Sundri College, DU Indraprastha College for Women (I.P. College), DU Shaheed Bhagat Singh College, DU Jamia Millia Islamia (University) Ambedkar University Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (I.P. University) Cases 2. If you are not an English Hons. or Majors student, what sort of English courses do you take? Honours Non Honours Cases 3. Year of study 1 2 3 Cases

Honours 18.3% 12.5% 4.3% 6.6% 12.5% 16.3% 13.6% 5.1% 10.9% 257

Not Honours 2.8% 9.7% 10.1% 9.4% 11.0% 0.3% 31.8% 4.4% 2.2%

8.2% 7.1% 7.3% 8.5% 5.2% 6.1% 5.7% 17.6% 9.7% 7.3%

1.6% 1.3% 6.3% 9.1%

0.9% 3.0% 8.3% 5.0%

318

Honours

575

Not Honours

Total

100.0% 318

44.7% 55.3% 575

100.0% 257

Total

Honours

Not Honours

Total

32.5% 23.4% 44.0% 252

30.4% 30.4% 39.2% 309

31.4% 27.3% 41.4% 561

Appendix 187 4. Age 17–18 19 20 21+ Cases

5. Nationality Indian USA Canadian Nepalise Congolese Yemeni Cases

6. Sex F M Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

26.4% 23.6% 34.3% 15.7% 254

22.1% 35.2% 28.7% 14.0% 307

24.1% 29.9% 31.2% 14.8% 561

Honours 99.6% 0.4%

0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 0.3% 310

Honours

Not Honours

Total

81.7% 18.3% 246

63.0% 37.0% 297

71.5% 28.5% 543

246

Honours 76.9% 6.1% 7.3% 6.1% 3.6% 247

8.1 How many languages do you use/can you communicate in? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cases

98.1%

Total 98.7% 0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.2% 556

7. Category General SC ST OBC Don’t wish to answer Foreign quota Cases

Not Honours

Not Honours

Total

72.7% 8.2% 4.6% 11.8% 2.0% 0.7% 304

74.6% 7.3% 5.8% 9.3% 2.7% 0.4% 551

Honours

Not Honours

43.1% 38.3% 14.6% 3.6%

0.3% 51.3% 37.1% 8.9% 2.0% 0.3%

0.4% 253

302

Total 0.2% 47.6% 37.7% 11.5% 2.7% 0.2% 0.2% 555

188  Appendix 8.2.1 Specify which languages do you use/can you communicate in? Honours Not Total Honours Hindi English German Punjabi Urdu Sanskrit Mizo French Malvi Angika Malayalam Haryanvi Bengali Manipuri Japanese Korean Paite Assamese Rengma– Rongmei Dogri Spanish Odiya/Oriya Tamil Kannada Chinese Arabic

94.2% 85.8% 89.6% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 3.9% 1.9% 2.8% 16.7% 16.7% 16.7% 5.1% 3.5% 4.2% 9.3% 1.9% 5.2% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 6.2% 11.0% 8.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.2% 6.6% 2.5% 4.3% 0.4% 0.9% 0.7% 8.2% 1.6% 4.5% 0.4% 1.6% 1.0% 0.8% 0.3% 0.8% 0.3% 0.4% 0.2% 2.1% 3.9% 0.6% 0.4% 1.2% 1.6% 0.4% 2.7% 0.4%

0.3%

0.3%

1.3% 0.6% 2.8% 0.9% 0.6% 0.9%

0.5% 1.4% 0.5% 2.8% 0.5% 0.3% 0.7%

8.2.2 Level of language proficiency (2=basic, 3=moderate, 4=good, 5=fluent) Hindi Reading Writing Speaking English Reading Writing Speaking Punjabi Reading Writing Speaking

Honours Not Total Honours Rajasthani Magadhi Maithili Kashmiri Marwari Telugu Nepali Hmar Bodo Kom Gujarati Swahili Russian Italian Marathi Magamese Sourashtra Bhojpuri Garhwali

0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8%

0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.8%

0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.9% 0.3% 0.6% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

0.4%

0.2%

Khadibali 0.3% Farsi 0.4% Konkani 0.6% Tangkhul 0.4% Liangmai 0.3% Zeme 0.3% Cases 257 318

Honours

0.3% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 0.2% 0.9% 0.7% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3%

Not Honours

Total

0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 575

Mean

Cases

Mean

Cases

Mean

Cases

4,30 4,11 4,37

208 208 211

4,27 4,10 4,47

205 205 207

4,29 4,11 4,42

413 413 418

4,66 4,50 4,46

214 215 214

4,41 4,18 4,15

222 222 222

4,53 4,34 4,30

436 437 436

2,82 2,68 3,18

22 22 33

3,41 3,31 3,84

34 32 43

3,18 3,06 3,55

56 54 76

Appendix 189 8.2.2 Level of language proficiency (2=basic, 3=moderate, 4=good, 5=fluent) Urdu Reading Writing Speaking Sanskrit Reading Writing Speaking French Reading Writing Speaking Malayalam Reading Writing Speaking Bengali Reading Writing Speaking 9. Education background Government school Non-Government school International school Other Cases 10. In-county/international mobility I lived in Delhi prior to my university studies I moved to Delhi for my studies from Cases 11. Family income monthly Below Rs. 20,000 Between Rs. 20,000 and 50,000

Honours

Not Honours

Total

Mean

Cases

Mean

Cases

Mean

Cases

3,44 2,89 3,80

9 9 10

3,67 3,67 4,40

6 6 5

3,53 3,20 4,00

15 15 15

3,17 2,70 2,47

23 23 15

3,60 3,50 3,25

5 4 4

3,25 2,81 2,63

28 27 19

2,80 2,60 2,50

15 15 16

2,85 2,93 2,84

26 27 25

2,83 2,81 2,71

41 42 41

3,92 3,67 4,35

13 12 17

4,00 4,00 4,14

3 3 7

3,94 3,73 4,29

16 15 24

4,25 4,20 4,33

16 15 18

5,00 5,00 4,50

1 1 2

4,29 4,25 4,35

17 16 20

Honours

Not Honours

Total

16.7% 79.7% 2.7% 0.9% 222

26.3% 67.7% 3.9% 2.1% 285

22.1% 73.0% 3.4% 1.6% 507

Honours

Not Honours

Total

62.3%

72.9%

68.3%

37.7%

27.1%

31.7%

231

295

526

Honours

Not Honours

Total

10.5% 29.8%

19.9% 31.6%

15.8% 30.8% (continued)

190  Appendix (continued) 11. Family income monthly Between Rs. 50,000 and 100,000 Between Rs. 100,000 and 200,000 Over Rs. 200,000 Cases

12. How are your studies at the university supported? My parents support me I work full-time and study I work part-time and study I have a stipend/fellowship Other Cases

Honours 33.2% 16.0% 10.5% 238

Not Honours

Total

21.6% 13.0% 14.0% 301

26.7% 14.3% 12.4% 539

Honours

Not Honours

Total

97.6%

95.5% 1.9% 3.5% 0.6% 1.0% 311

96.4% 1.1% 3.6% 0.7% 1.1% 561

3.6% 0.8% 1.2% 250

Part II Expectations and experience in the course of study 13. When you began your current English courses, what did you expect to study?

Honours

Not Honours

Total

28.9% 28.9% 40.7% 1.6% 253

9.8% 24.3% 63.4% 2.5% 317

18.2% 26.3% 53.3% 2.1% 570

39.4% 26.5% 29.3% 4.8% 249

21.0% 26.0% 47.3% 5.7% 315

29.1% 26.2% 39.4% 5.3% 564

9.9% 22.9% 64.8% 2.4% 253

11.4% 18.1% 67.0% 3.5% 315

10.7% 20.2% 66.0% 3.0% 568

a. I expected to improve my English speaking skills Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases b. I expected to improve my English listening skills Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases c. I expected to improve my English writing skills Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases

Appendix 191 d. I expected to improve my English reading skills Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases

30.9% 24.0% 42.7% 2.4% 246

21.2% 25.0% 48.4% 5.4% 316

25.4% 24.6% 45.9% 4.1% 562

20.8% 28.6% 42.9% 7.8% 245

11.0% 29.4% 46.9% 12.6% 309

15.3% 29.1% 45.1% 10.5% 554

15.7% 30.5% 44.6% 9.2% 249

12.9% 27.5% 45.3% 14.2% 309

14.2% 28.9% 45.0% 12.0% 558

14.2% 27.6% 50.8% 7.3% 246

29.2% 25.4% 30.5% 14.9% 315

22.6% 26.4% 39.4% 11.6% 561

28.5% 33.3% 26.0% 12.2% 246

28.0% 26.3% 31.9% 13.8% 304

28.2% 29.5% 29.3% 13.1% 550

16.5% 29.0%

34.0% 20.2%

26.1% 24.2%

e. I expected to acquire proficiency in translating and interpreting Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases f. I expected to study English language and linguistics Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases g. I expected to study Indian literature and culture Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases h. I expected to be informed about Englishspeaking cultures generally Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases i. I expected to study British and American literature Not true Somewhat true

(continued)

192  Appendix (continued) 13. When you began your current English courses, what did you expect to study? True Not sure Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

45.9% 8.6% 255

27.2% 18.6% 312

35.6% 14.1% 567

10.0% 22.8% 57.2% 10.0% 250

36.0% 23.2% 25.7% 15.1% 311

24.4% 23.0% 39.8% 12.8% 561

7.9% 19.3% 63.4% 9.4% 254

25.6% 27.6% 31.2% 15.6% 308

17.6% 23.8% 45.7% 12.8% 562

22.1% 21.7% 47.4% 8.7% 253

10.9% 24.4% 52.4% 12.2% 311

16.0% 23.2% 50.2% 10.6% 564

j. I expected to study the theory of literature/ culture or critical theory Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases k. I expected to study the great literatures of the world Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases l. I expected to study creative writing Not true Somewhat true True Not sure Cases

14. To what extent have your expectations been met? My expectations were fully met My expectations were somewhat met My expectations were not met at all The programme changed my expectations Unable to judge Cases 15. Please tick the following statements as indicated

Honours

Not Honours

Total

22.1% 59.7% 1.6%

14.0% 63.6% 3.9%

17.6% 61.9% 2.9%

9.1%

5.5%

7.1%

7.5% 253

13.0% 308

10.5% 561

Honours

Not Honours

0.9% 26.5%

4.7% 20.0%

Total

a. There is a good balance between compulsory and elective English courses Strongly disagree Disagree

3.0% 22.8%

Appendix 193 15. Please tick the following statements as indicated Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

44.4% 3.8% 24.4% 234

53.3% 3.3% 18.7% 300

49.4% 3.6% 21.2% 534

5.1% 39.6% 33.6% 5.5% 16.2% 235

4.3% 32.9% 43.5% 3.0% 16.3% 301

4.7% 35.8% 39.2% 4.1% 16.2% 536

5.3% 9.4% 59.0% 15.6% 10.7% 244

3.3% 13.8% 63.5% 13.8% 5.6% 304

4.2% 11.9% 61.5% 14.6% 7.8% 548

Honours

Not Honours

Total

17.8% 36.0% 37.2% 9.1% 242

23.5% 36.2% 35.2% 5.2% 307

20.9% 36.1% 36.1% 6.9% 549

9.7% 33.2% 51.8% 5.3% 247

17.2% 35.9% 40.8% 6.1% 309

13.8% 34.7% 45.7% 5.8% 556

12.0% 18.2% 67.4%

9.3% 20.2% 68.6%

10.5% 19.3% 68.1%

b. There is sufficient range of elective English courses for students to choose from Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases c. Available English courses allow me to develop my interests and plans Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases

16. What are your current academic interests? a. I am interested in the system of language/linguistics Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases b. I am interested in relations between language and society Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases c. I am interested in the practice of communication Not true Somewhat true True

(continued)

194  Appendix (continued) 16. What are your current academic interests? Can’t judge Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

2.5% 242

1.9% 312

2.2% 554

26.9% 30.6% 34.3% 8.2% 245

21.0% 37.2% 34.6% 7.1% 309

23.6% 34.3% 34.5% 7.6% 554

5.6% 20.4% 72.8% 1.2% 250

14.2% 30.6% 52.9% 2.3% 310

10.4% 26.1% 61.8% 1.8% 560

23.4% 32.0% 38.5% 6.1% 244

30.7% 32.0% 28.1% 9.2% 306

27.5% 32.0% 32.7% 7.8% 550

17.8% 38.9% 33.6% 9.7% 247

27.8% 32.5% 26.2% 13.6% 302

23.3% 35.3% 29.5% 11.8% 549

13.6% 22.4% 60.4% 3.6% 250

29.3% 30.6% 31.9% 8.1% 307

22.3% 26.9% 44.7% 6.1% 557

13.8% 25.5%

13.5% 26.4%

13.6% 26.0%

d. I am interested in translation theory and practice Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases e. I am interested in literature in English Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases f. I am interested in literature in translation Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases g. I am interested in comparative literature Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases h. I am interested in world literatures Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases i. I am interested in creative writing Not true Somewhat true

Appendix 195 16. What are your current academic interests? True Can’t judge Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

58.3% 2.4% 247

55.8% 4.3% 303

56.9% 3.5% 550

28.9% 28.0% 35.8% 7.3% 246

42.8% 24.8% 24.2% 8.2% 306

36.6% 26.3% 29.3% 7.8% 552

35.0% 34.1% 28.0% 2.8% 246

50.5% 22.7% 22.0% 4.9% 309

43.6% 27.7% 24.7% 4.0% 555

44.2% 29.7% 23.3% 2.8% 249

50.8% 21.8% 22.8% 4.6% 307

47.8% 25.4% 23.0% 3.8% 556

12.5% 33.5% 50.4% 3.6% 248

22.1% 32.5% 39.6% 5.8% 308

17.8% 32.9% 44.4% 4.9% 556

17.9% 27.5% 49.8% 4.8% 251

18.7% 32.1% 43.6% 5.6% 305

18.3% 30.0% 46.4% 5.2% 556

20.6% 18.5% 53.2% 7.7% 248

24.4% 22.5% 45.3% 7.8% 307

22.7% 20.7% 48.8% 7.7% 555

j. I am interested in philosophy Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases k. I am interested in history Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases l. I am interested in politics Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases m. I am interested in popular culture Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases n. I am interested in media and journalism Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases o. I am interested in education/ teaching/pedagogy Not true Somewhat true True Can’t judge Cases

196  Appendix 17. In your view, which description best fits the English courses you are engaged in: It is primarily a course in literary studies in general It is primarily culture studies in general It is primarily a programme in language and linguistics in a broad sense It is primarily the study of British or American literatures/cultures It is primarily the study of the Indian context It is primarily a study of different Englishspeaking contexts such as Australian, Canadian etc. Other Cases

18. Study practices

Honours

Not Honours

Total

45.6%

34.0%

39.2%

12.4%

18.2%

15.6%

13.6%

21.5%

17.9%

17.2%

9.2%

12.8%

4.8%

13.2%

9.4%

1.2%

2.0%

1.6%

5.2% 250

2.0% 303

3.4% 553

Honours

Not Honours

Total

18.1 Which of the following applies to the work you do in the classroom for English courses? We communicate ONLY in English for English courses We communicate MOSTLY in English for English courses We communicate MOSTLY in Hindi for English courses Cases

44.5%

39.8%

41.9%

51.2%

47.5%

49.1%

4.3% 256

12.7% 314

8.9% 570

18.2 Which of the following is true for the work you do yourself for English courses? For English courses I use texts ONLY in English For English courses I use texts in English and Hindi For English courses I use texts in English and another Indian Cases

19. How would you respond to the following statements about examinations/ testing for English courses?

86.9%

75.5%

80.6%

9.1%

19.7%

15.0%

4.0%

4.8%

4.4%

252

314

566

Honours

Not Honours

Total

a. There are too many graded sit-down examinations Strongly disagree Disagree

8.6% 46.9%

2.6% 44.9%

5.3% 45.8%

Appendix 197 19. How would you respond to the following statements about examinations/ testing for English courses? Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

23.7% 9.0% 11.8% 245

32.1% 6.6% 13.8% 305

28.4% 7.6% 12.9% 550

5.4% 36.8% 37.6% 12.0% 8.3% 242

2.3% 41.5% 42.5% 3.7% 10.0% 299

3.7% 39.4% 40.3% 7.4% 9.2% 541

8.4% 53.4% 24.5% 7.6% 6.0% 249

4.3% 47.7% 37.4% 4.3% 6.3% 302

6.2% 50.3% 31.6% 5.8% 6.2% 551

10.6% 16.3% 57.3% 12.2% 3.7% 246

3.3% 10.9% 65.5% 17.1% 3.3% 304

6.5% 13.3% 61.8% 14.9% 3.5% 550

15.7% 40.7% 29.0% 6.9% 7.7% 248

8.9% 27.9% 46.2% 11.8% 5.2% 305

11.9% 33.6% 38.5% 9.6% 6.3% 553

8.8% 30.5% 41.8%

4.7% 17.3% 55.3%

6.6% 23.3% 49.2%

b. There are too many graded coursework submissions Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases c. There is too much testing in the course before the exam Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases d. The examination/testing process is good for evaluating reading and writing skills Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases e. The examination/testing process is good for assessing listening and speaking skills Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases f. The examination/testing process is good for evaluating overall competence in language and communication Strongly disagree Disagree Agree

(continued)

198  Appendix (continued) 19. How would you respond to the following statements about examinations/ testing for English courses? Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

12.0% 6.8% 249

12.3% 10.3% 300

12.2% 8.7% 549

8.7% 16.1% 58.7% 13.2% 3.3% 242

4.6% 17.0% 57.2% 14.1% 7.2% 306

6.4% 16.6% 57.8% 13.7% 5.5% 548

9.3% 24.3% 45.3% 13.0% 8.1% 247

4.3% 19.2% 57.6% 12.9% 6.0% 302

6.6% 21.5% 52.1% 12.9% 6.9% 549

4.5% 20.3% 55.7% 10.6% 8.9% 246

4.3% 12.6% 55.3% 17.2% 10.6% 302

4.4% 16.1% 55.5% 14.2% 9.9% 548

10.6% 27.2% 37.0% 16.3% 8.9% 246

4.6% 18.4% 50.5% 19.3% 7.2% 305

7.3% 22.3% 44.5% 18.0% 8.0% 551

Honours

Not Honours

Total

g. The examination/testing process evaluates understanding of concepts and theories Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases h. The examination/testing process is good for assessing range of knowledge Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases i. The feedback I get from teachers/ examiners is adequate Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases j. The examination/testing process enables me to have a clear sense of my progress Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases 20. Do you take part in extracurricular activities in your institution which help with your English studies? Book clubs Debate and elocution events

9.8% 15.7%

17.1% 11.6%

13.8% 13.5%

Appendix 199 20. Do you take part in extracurricular activities in your institution which help with your English studies? Film screenings and discussions Creative writing clubs Social e-forums Other university media, e.g. radio, newsletters Drama circles Other No Cases

21. Tick as appropriate

Honours

Not Honours

Total

54.7% 21.7% 10.6%

27.1% 17.1% 9.7%

39.5% 19.1% 10.1%

15.4%

13.9%

14.5%

22.4% 5.9% 12.2% 254

9.7% 6.5% 22.9% 310

15.4% 6.2% 18.1% 564

Honours

Not Honours

Total

31.2% 64.4% 4.4% 250

37.4% 58.4% 4.3% 305

34.6% 61.1% 4.3% 555

52.0% 42.5% 5.6% 252

44.4% 52.6% 3.0% 304

47.8% 48.0% 4.1% 556

22.2% 69.8% 8.1% 248

39.3% 51.5% 9.2% 305

31.6% 59.7% 8.7% 553

32.0% 61.6% 6.4% 250

45.5% 45.8% 8.6% 301

39.4% 53.0% 7.6% 551

a To what extent are you aware of the current research interests of your tutors/ lecturers? Not aware at all To some extent To a great extent Cases b To what extent are you aware of current research interests of academics in other institutions in India? Not aware at all To some extent To a great extent Cases c To what extent are you aware of issues and debates related to English Studies and education, locally and internationally? Not aware at all To some extent To a great extent Cases d Have you been: a. Reading scholarly publications by your tutors/lecturers? Never Sometimes Regularly Cases

(continued)

200  Appendix (continued) 21. Tick as appropriate

Honours

Not Honours

Total

20.9% 65.9% 13.3% 249

36.9% 55.8% 7.3% 301

29.6% 60.4% 10.0% 550

24.2% 61.3% 14.5% 248

46.0% 46.3% 7.7% 298

36.1% 53.1% 10.8% 546

29.6% 56.7% 13.8% 247

36.6% 53.8% 9.6% 303

33.5% 55.1% 11.5% 550

b. Reading scholarly publications by academics in India besides the ones assigned in your courses? Never Sometimes Regularly Cases c. Reading scholarly publications by academics outside India besides the ones assigned in your courses? Never Sometimes Regularly Cases d. Visiting websites of other institutions/ departments offering programmes similar to yours? Never Sometimes Regularly Cases

22. Do you know about English courses similar to yours in other institutions? Yes No Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

70.4% 29.6% 247

62.6% 37.4% 310

66.1% 33.9% 557

68.2%

72.5%

70.5%

17.3%

12.4%

14.8%

35.8%

23.3%

29.2%

6.4%

2.6%

4.4%

If YES: (a) How have you found out about such courses? I have been communicating with friends studying English in another institution I have discussed English studies in other institutions with my tutors I have been independently reading materials on English studies in other institutions (such as, websites with curricula, syllabi, course materials and other resources) I have taken a semester/academic year in another institution

Appendix 201 22. Do you know about English courses similar to yours in other institutions? I have taken part in extracurricular activities involving students from other institutions (such as undergraduate conferences, clubs, projects, events) I have attended lectures/seminars by visiting lecturers from other institutions Other Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

15.0%

7.8%

11.2%

27.7%

9.3%

18.0%

0.6% 173

0.5% 193

0.5% 366

27.8% 61.4% 10.8% 176

29.1% 63.0% 7.9% 189

28.5% 62.2% 9.3% 365

(b) Are your English courses similar to English Studies in other institutions? Unable to judge To some extent To a great extent Cases

(c) If able to judge, in what ways are the courses you are studying SIMILAR to English courses in other institutions? Open question (d) If able to judge, in what ways are the courses you are studying DIFFERENT from English courses in other institutions? Open question (e) Please tick your answer to the following statements a. My current courses are of comparable standard to English courses in other institutions, locally and internationally Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases

3.5% 8.8% 62.9% 7.6% 17.1% 170

4.1% 15.4% 56.9% 4.1% 19.5% 195

3.8% 12.3% 59.7% 5.8% 18.4% 365

17.0% 44.2% 18.2% 6.1% 14.5%

13.1% 49.2% 20.9% 2.6% 14.1%

14.9% 46.9% 19.7% 4.2% 14.3%

b. My current courses is lagging behind Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge

(continued)

202  Appendix (continued) 22. Do you know about English courses similar to yours in other institutions? Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

165

191

356

6.7% 29.4% 33.1% 4.3% 26.4% 163

4.7% 39.3% 33.5% 3.7% 18.8% 191

5.6% 34.7% 33.3% 4.0% 22.3% 354

c. My current courses are more advanced Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Unable to judge Cases

23. What do you think are the key issues that need to be addressed in English studies? a. In India specifically b. Internationally Open question

Part III Employment considerations 24. Please indicate ONE position for each statement

Honours

Not Honours

Total

46.2% 21.5% 31.9% 0.4% 251

31.3% 28.7% 38.1% 2.0% 307

38.0% 25.4% 35.3% 1.3% 558

19.1% 19.5% 60.2% 1.2% 251

29.8% 25.6% 43.6% 1.0% 305

25.0% 22.8% 51.1% 1.1% 556

67.2% 14.6% 16.6% 1.6%

48.5% 17.6% 32.6% 1.3%

56.9% 16.2% 25.4% 1.5%

a. My current institution was my first choice Not true Somewhat true True Don’t know Cases b. My current programme was my first choice Not true Somewhat true True Don’t know Cases c. I wanted to study something else but didn’t get admitted to the other programme Not true Somewhat true True Don’t know

Appendix 203 24. Please indicate ONE position for each statement Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

247

301

548

11.7% 32.3% 42.7% 13.3% 248

12.7% 34.0% 46.7% 6.7% 300

12.2% 33.2% 44.9% 9.7% 548

21.9% 17.4% 51.4% 9.3% 247

32.9% 19.3% 36.5% 11.3% 301

27.9% 18.4% 43.2% 10.4% 548

40.1% 17.8% 27.5% 14.6% 247

36.1% 22.1% 28.6% 13.3% 294

37.9% 20.1% 28.1% 13.9% 541

Honours

Not Honours

Total

35.2%

33.4%

34.2%

18.4%

13.8%

15.9%

6.8% 2.0% 0.4% 34.0%

9.3% 1.9% 1.3% 39.9%

8.2% 2.0% 0.9% 37.3%

27.6%

18.3%

22.5%

1.6% 12.8% 14.4%

2.6% 12.5% 21.9%

2.1% 12.7% 18.5%

10.8%

15.1%

13.2%

d. My English courses definitely improve my employment prospects Not true Somewhat true True Don’t know Cases e. I plan to apply for a further degree in the same subject area (e.g. MA, PhD) Not true Somewhat true True Don’t know Cases f. I plan to apply for a further degree in a different subject area Not true Somewhat true True Don’t know Cases

25. Before you entered your current programme, what type of sector did you want to work for? Institutions of higher education University-affiliated research centres or other research ins Secondary school Preschool, elementary or middle school Other educational institution Indian government institutions Foreign government and inter-government institution(s) Municipal/local administration Not-for-profit institution/NGO India-based industry or business (for profit) Non-India-based industry or business (for profit)

(continued)

204  Appendix (continued) 25. Before you entered your current programme, what type of sector did you want to work for? Mass-media organisations Self-employed Other Cases

26. What type of sector do you want to work for now? Institutions of higher education University-affiliated research centres or other research ins Secondary school Preschool, elementary or middle school Other educational institution Indian government institutions Foreign government and inter-government institution(s) Municipal/local administration Not-for-profit institution/NGO India-based industry or business (for profit) Non-India-based industry or business (for profit) Mass-media organisations Self-employed Other Cases

27. What skills do you have now?

Honours

Not Honours

Total

38.4% 22.4% 2.4% 250

12.2% 32.8% 2.9% 311

23.9% 28.2% 2.7% 561

Honours

Not Honours

Total

32.4%

25.9%

28.8%

15.6%

11.2%

13.1%

8.4% 2.4% 0.4% 32.0%

6.4% 2.9% 1.3% 35.1%

7.3% 2.7% 0.9% 33.7%

22.0%

18.2%

19.9%

1.2% 12.4% 14.4%

2.9% 13.1% 19.8%

2.1% 12.8% 17.4%

10.8%

14.4%

12.8%

33.2% 24.0% 2.4% 250

11.2% 25.6% 3.2% 313

21.0% 24.9% 2.8% 563

Honours

Not Honours

Total

12.6% 14.6% 36.0% 19.4% 14.2% 3.2% 247

5.9% 22.2% 32.7% 21.2% 15.4% 2.6% 306

8.9% 18.8% 34.2% 20.4% 14.8% 2.9% 553

8.4% 30.5%

14.9% 43.0%

12.0% 37.5%

1. Writing effectively in your mother tongue (if other than English) Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 2. Writing effectively in English Fair Good

Appendix 205 27. What skills do you have now?

Honours

Not Honours

Total

Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

37.3% 22.9% 0.8% 249

27.5% 14.6% 309

31.9% 18.3% 0.4% 558

3. Speaking effectively in your mother tongue Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

2.4% 10.4% 23.5% 27.1% 34.7% 2.0% 251

2.0% 7.5% 29.1% 30.4% 30.7% 0.3% 306

2.2% 8.8% 26.6% 28.9% 32.5% 1.1% 557

1.0% 16.3% 41.2% 29.6% 12.0%

4. Speaking effectively in English Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

7.3% 29.1% 35.2% 27.1% 1.2% 247

301

0.5% 12.2% 35.8% 32.1% 18.8% 0.5% 548

2.0% 16.9% 39.4% 28.9% 10.0% 2.8% 249

1.7% 19.7% 41.8% 25.8% 7.7% 3.3% 299

1.8% 18.4% 40.7% 27.2% 8.8% 3.1% 548

0.8% 22.9% 39.8% 26.5% 8.0% 2.0% 249

2.0% 22.3% 43.6% 24.3% 7.2% 0.7% 305

1.4% 22.6% 41.9% 25.3% 7.6% 1.3% 554

1.6% 11.8% 41.1% 31.3% 13.0% 1.2% 246

1.3% 12.3% 43.3% 28.3% 12.3% 2.3% 300

1.5% 12.1% 42.3% 29.7% 12.6% 1.8% 546 (continued)

5. Critically analysing written information Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 6. Defining and solving problems Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 7. Working and/or learning independently Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

206  Appendix (continued) 27. What skills do you have now?

Honours

Not Honours

Total

3.2% 21.1% 31.9% 28.3% 13.1% 2.4% 251

3.6% 13.1% 37.0% 31.8% 11.8% 2.6% 305

3.4% 16.7% 34.7% 30.2% 12.4% 2.5% 556

20.9% 23.3% 28.5% 14.1% 10.4% 2.8% 249

19.3% 24.3% 30.2% 13.6% 7.3% 5.3% 301

20.0% 23.8% 29.5% 13.8% 8.7% 4.2% 550

2.0% 16.0% 34.8% 30.4% 14.8% 2.0% 250

3.9% 22.4% 41.8% 19.7% 6.6% 5.6% 304

3.1% 19.5% 38.6% 24.5% 10.3% 4.0% 554

6.0% 23.8% 39.9% 19.4% 8.1% 2.8% 248

7.3% 31.6% 37.9% 12.6% 3.3% 7.3% 301

6.7% 28.1% 38.8% 15.7% 5.5% 5.3% 549

5.7% 31.3% 32.5% 18.3% 6.1% 6.1% 246

8.0% 28.8% 37.1% 15.1% 4.0% 7.0% 299

7.0% 29.9% 35.0% 16.5% 5.0% 6.6% 545

8. Working in a team/cooperatively in a group Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 9. Using a language apart from English and your mother tongue Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 10. Understanding and appreciating literature and/or the fine arts Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 11. Understanding and applying concepts/ frameworks of Literary/Linguistic/ Cultural Theory Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 12. Being able to conduct research effectively within your discipline Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

Appendix 207 27. What skills do you have now?

Honours

Not Honours

Total

1.6% 18.1% 33.3% 28.1% 16.5% 2.4% 249

2.3% 24.3% 37.0% 24.7% 7.0% 4.7% 300

2.0% 21.5% 35.3% 26.2% 11.3% 3.6% 549

6.9% 23.3% 28.2% 24.5% 13.5% 3.7% 245

8.2% 25.3% 36.2% 19.4% 6.3% 4.6% 304

7.7% 24.4% 32.6% 21.7% 9.5% 4.2% 549

4.4% 16.5% 27.0% 27.8% 22.2% 2.0% 248

3.4% 16.0% 34.7% 26.9% 18.4% .7% 294

3.9% 16.2% 31.2% 27.3% 20.1% 1.3% 542

2.9% 18.8% 37.6% 24.1% 13.9% 2.9% 245

1.4% 17.6% 45.4% 23.7% 9.5% 2.4% 295

2.0% 18.1% 41.9% 23.9% 11.5% 2.6% 540

2.0% 11.2% 37.6% 33.6% 14.8% 0.8% 250

1.7% 19.1% 43.6% 27.1% 6.9% 1.7% 303

1.8% 15.6% 40.9% 30.0% 10.5% 1.3% 553

13. Understanding and appreciating cultural differences Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 14. Being able to engage with current social and political issues Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 15. Working effectively with modern technology, especially computers Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 16. Locating information needed to help make decisions or solve problems Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 17. Using knowledge, ideas, or perspectives gained from the area of English studies Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

(continued)

208  Appendix (continued) 27. What skills do you have now?

Honours

Not Honours

Total

1.6% 16.4% 42.8% 25.2% 10.4% 3.6% 250

2.3% 17.9% 41.4% 28.8% 7.0% 2.6% 302

2.0% 17.2% 42.0% 27.2% 8.5% 3.1% 552

7.6% 22.9% 32.5% 22.1% 10.0% 4.8% 249

4.6% 17.5% 35.8% 26.2% 10.3% 5.6% 302

6.0% 20.0% 34.3% 24.3% 10.2% 5.3% 551

0.8% 12.1% 35.9% 29.0% 19.0% 3.2% 248

2.0% 17.9% 32.5% 31.8% 13.6% 2.3% 302

1.5% 15.3% 34.0% 30.5% 16.0% 2.7% 550

4.0% 18.9% 37.3% 26.9% 10.0% 2.8% 249

3.0% 16.1% 43.4% 25.0% 8.2% 4.3% 304

3.4% 17.4% 40.7% 25.9% 9.0% 3.6% 553

Honours

Not Honours

Total

18. Using knowledge, ideas, or perspectives gained outside the area of English studies Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 19. Using management/leadership capabilities Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 20. Recognizing your responsibilities and rights as a citizen Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 21. Understanding of teaching and education methodology Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

28. What skills do you need to have? 1. Writing effectively in your mother tongue (if other than English) Poor Fair

9.4% 13.9%

3.0% 15.2%

5.9% 14.6%

Appendix 209 28. What skills do you need to have? Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

29.5% 18.0% 23.4% 5.7% 244

31.6% 20.9% 27.9% 1.3% 297

30.7% 19.6% 25.9% 3.3% 541

3.8% 10.0% 25.5% 18.0% 40.6% 2.1% 239

1.7% 11.2% 24.5% 22.8% 39.8% 294

2.6% 10.7% 25.0% 20.6% 40.2% 0.9% 533

4.7% 8.2% 27.9% 19.3% 36.5% 3.4% 233

1.7% 10.7% 28.7% 24.9% 33.2% 0.7% 289

3.1% 9.6% 28.4% 22.4% 34.7% 1.9% 522

4.2% 10.1% 20.7% 21.9% 40.1% 3.0% 237

2.1% 8.0% 32.6% 16.7% 40.3% 0.3% 288

3.0% 9.0% 27.2% 19.0% 40.2% 1.5% 525

3.0% 13.2% 25.5% 22.1% 33.2% 3.0% 235

2.8% 12.1% 30.4% 26.6% 26.3% 1.7% 289

2.9% 12.6% 28.2% 24.6% 29.4% 2.3% 524

1.7% 13.8% 25.4% 25.0%

3.2% 13.7% 30.9% 26.0%

2.5% 13.7% 28.4% 25.5%

2. Writing effectively in English Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 3. Speaking effectively in your mother tongue Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 4. Speaking effectively in English Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 5. Critically analysing written information Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 6. Defining and solving problems Poor Fair Good Very good

(continued)

210  Appendix (continued) 28. What skills do you need to have? Excellent Cannot say Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

30.6% 3.4% 232

23.9% 2.5% 285

26.9% 2.9% 517

2.2% 9.6% 22.2% 25.7% 36.1% 4.3% 230

3.1% 9.3% 26.0% 29.1% 29.4% 3.1% 289

2.7% 9.4% 24.3% 27.6% 32.4% 3.7% 519

2.6% 9.9% 26.6% 21.9% 33.9% 5.2% 233

3.1% 12.2% 27.3% 26.6% 26.9% 3.8% 286

2.9% 11.2% 27.0% 24.5% 30.1% 4.4% 519

6.2% 12.8% 29.6% 22.1% 25.7% 3.5% 226

6.3% 17.6% 28.9% 23.6% 21.8% 1.8% 284

6.3% 15.5% 29.2% 22.9% 23.5% 2.5% 510

0.9% 14.2% 22.7% 27.6% 30.7% 4.0% 225

4.0% 12.9% 33.1% 29.1% 18.7% 2.2% 278

2.6% 13.5% 28.4% 28.4% 24.1% 3.0% 503

4.3% 14.3%

6.0% 18.9%

5.2% 16.9%

7. Working and/or learning independently Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 8. Working in a team/cooperatively in a group Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 9. Using a language apart from English and your mother tongue Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 10. Understanding and appreciating literature and/or the fine arts Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 11. Understanding and applying concepts/ frameworks of Literary/Linguistic/Cultural Theory Poor Fair

Appendix 211 28. What skills do you need to have? Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

26.1% 24.3% 24.8% 6.1% 230

32.6% 22.1% 15.8% 4.6% 285

29.7% 23.1% 19.8% 5.2% 515

4.8% 15.7% 19.6% 26.1% 26.5% 7.4% 230

4.6% 18.2% 27.7% 24.2% 20.7% 4.6% 285

4.7% 17.1% 24.1% 25.0% 23.3% 5.8% 515

3.5% 11.4% 27.5% 26.2% 27.1% 4.4% 229

3.5% 18.8% 25.2% 28.4% 22.3% 1.8% 282

3.5% 15.5% 26.2% 27.4% 24.5% 2.9% 511

3.9% 12.2% 24.9% 28.4% 24.5% 6.1% 229

5.3% 19.1% 29.3% 22.3% 20.8% 3.2% 283

4.7% 16.0% 27.3% 25.0% 22.5% 4.5% 512

5.3% 9.3% 27.0% 28.8% 24.8% 4.9% 226

3.5% 12.5% 25.4% 26.1% 30.7% 1.7% 287

4.3% 11.1% 26.1% 27.3% 28.1% 3.1% 513

2.6% 11.0%

2.8% 13.9%

2.8% 12.6%

12. Being able to conduct research effectively within your discipline Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 13. Understanding and appreciating cultural differences Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 14. Being able to engage with current social and political issues Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 15. Working effectively with modern technology, especially computers Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 16. Locating information needed to help make decisions or solve problems Poor Fair

(continued)

212  Appendix 28. What skills do you need to have? Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

24.2% 32.2% 25.6% 4.4% 227

24.9% 33.5% 21.7% 3.2% 281

24.6% 32.9% 23.4% 3.7% 508

4.8% 10.8% 24.7% 29.0% 26.8% 3.9% 231

2.7% 13.0% 25.7% 31.8% 24.0% 2.7% 292

3.6% 12.0% 25.2% 30.6% 25.2% 3.3% 523

2.6% 10.8% 23.7% 29.3% 28.0% 5.6% 232

1.7% 13.1% 28.9% 30.9% 22.7% 2.7% 291

2.1% 12.0% 26.6% 30.2% 25.0% 4.0% 523

2.2% 13.4% 27.3% 23.8% 24.2% 9.1% 231

3.1% 13.7% 28.4% 20.5% 31.8% 2.4% 292

2.7% 13.6% 27.9% 22.0% 28.5% 5.4% 523

3.8% 11.9% 22.9% 28.8% 26.7% 5.9% 236

3.0% 13.9% 24.3% 26.0% 30.7% 2.0% 296

3.4% 13.0% 23.7% 27.3% 28.9% 3.8% 532

3.0% 11.5%

3.1% 15.3%

3.0% 13.6%

17. Using knowledge, ideas, or perspectives gained from the area of English Studies Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 18. Using knowledge, ideas, or perspectives gained outside the area of English studies Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 19. Using management/leadership capabilities Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 20. Recognizing your responsibilities and rights as a citizen Poor Fair Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases 21. Understanding of teaching and education methodology Poor Fair

Appendix 213 28. What skills do you need to have? Good Very good Excellent Cannot say Cases

Honours

Not Honours

Total

25.1% 31.1% 23.4% 6.0% 235

31.6% 24.8% 22.1% 3.1% 294

28.7% 27.6% 22.7% 4.3% 529

29. How have your English courses contributed (positively or negatively) to your development as a person? E.g., has it influenced your ideological and cultural perspectives, extra-curricular/extra-professional interests, social interactions, sense of identity. Please explain briefly. Open question

Index

11th Five Year Plan (2007–2012, India) 44, 53, 85, 135–36 12th Five Year Plan (2012–2017, India) 44, 53, 182 Agnihotri, R.K. 13, 18, 181; Problematizing English (with Khanna) 13 Ahmad, Aijaz 8 Ambedkar, B.R. 17 Ambedkar University, Bharat Ratna B.R. 91, 92, 98, 105, 107, 114–15, 116 American Centers (India) 167 American Comparative Literature Association (ACLA, USA) 163, 165 American Studies Association (ASA, USA) 168 American Studies Resource Center (Hyderabad) 167 Amity University 155 Arnold, Matthew 17, 136 Aryans and British India (Trautmann) 17 Association of American Universities (AAU, USA) 156 Association of Publishers in India (API) 178 Aston University 140 BPP University 147 Bagchi, Jasodhara 8 Bahujan Samaj Party 69 Bernheimer Report (ACLA) 163–65 Bharti College (Delhi) 127 Birmingham University 138 BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) 67 Bloom, Harold 159–60

Bologna Convention (EU) 152 Bombay University 135 Bourdieu, Pierre 15 BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) 14, 62, 63–4 British Council 50, 68, 135, 163, 178, 182–83 Brit­ish High Commission India 182 British Orientalism (Kopf) 11 Buckingham University 147 CABE (Central Advisory Board of Education, India) 25, 26 Calcutta University 135 Cambridge University 139 Canons and Contexts (Lauter) 158–59 caste (Dalits) 7, 14, 16–18, 35, 42, 44, 50, 52, 69, 82, 84–5, 86, 99–102 CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Examinations, India) 63, 68 Census of India 2011 82, 83–4, 88–9, 90 Chace, William 157, 160 Chakrabarty, Dipesh 9 Chatterjee, Kalyan 8, 10–12, 15; English Education 8, 10–12, 15 Chaudhury, Sukanta 29 Choudhury, Indra Nath 176 College of Vocational Studies (Delhi) 107 comparative literature 28, 163–65, 173, 174 Congress, Indian National 22, 23, 67 Constitution of India 23, 34, 88 Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA, UK) 138, 139 Coventry University 140

Index 215 creative writing 37, 60, 143 Cultural Capital (Guillory) 159 Culture and Imperialism (Said) 35 Curzon, Lord George 24 Dash, Santosh 13, 15–18; English Education 13, 15–18 Datta, Kitty Scoular 29 Dearing Report (1997) 141–42, 145, 146–47 Dearing, Ronald 141–42 Delhi University 31, 43, 45–6, 48, 65–7, 71, 79, 81–2, 85–6, 88, 89, 91, 92, 98, 100–02, 104–05, 107, 114, 116, 117, 136, 155, 162–63 Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (UK) 135, 145, 182–83 Desai, Anjana 6 Deshbandhu College (Delhi) 127–28 Devy, G.N. 161; In Another Tongue 161 Distance Education Council (DEC, India) 144 Durham University 138 East Anglia University 138 Education Reform Act (1988, UK) 139–40 ELT (English Language Teaching) 6–7, 25, 27, 29, 32, 47–8, 50–51, 54–5, 60–61, 68, 71–2, 73, 74, 90, 117 English Education (Chatterjee) 8, 10–12, 15 English Education (Dash) 13, 15–18 English, James 100, 160, 171; The Global Future 160–61, 171 English Studies (McComiskey) 172 Federal Student Aid (USA) 154 Florida State University 153 Fluck, Winfried 167 Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK) 182 Fulbright Commission 167 Further and Higher Education Act (1992, UK) 139–40 Gandhi, Indira 23 Gandhi, Rajiv 23 Gift of English (Mukherjee) 13, 15–18

Görlach, Manfred 179 Global Future, The (English) 160–61, 171 Graff, Gerald 157–58, 160, 162, 167, 175–76; Professing Literature 157–58, 175–76 Gramsci, Antonio 8, 15 Greenbaum, Sidney 180 Guha, Ranajit 8–9 Guillory, John 159, 160, 163; Cultural Capital 159 Higher Educa­tion Funding Council (HEFC, UK) 142, 144, 145 Higher Education Quality Council (UK) 140 Hinglish 14–15 Howatt, A.P.R. 18; History of ELT 18 Hussain, Zakir 24 ICHR (Indian Council of Historical Research) 28, 124 IIT (Indian Institute of Technology) Delhi 52, 71, 99 IIT Gauhati 52 Ilaiah, Kancha 17 Immigration and Nationality Act (1965, USA) 164 In Another Tongue (Devy) 161 Indraprastha College (Delhi) 107, 125–26 International Corpus of English (ICE) 180 Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) 82, 144 IP University, Guru Gobind Singh 92, 98, 107, 128 Jaaware, Aniket 6 Jadavpur University 52, 163 Jamia Millia University 43, 44, 46, 59, 81–2, 91, 92, 98, 99, 105, 107, 125 Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) 43, 47 Jesus and Mary College (Delhi) 46, 105 Joshi, Svati 8, 13, 162; Rethinking English 8, 13, 162 Kachru, Braj 70, 180 Keele University 138

216  Index Khanna, A.L. 13, 18, 181; Problematizing English (with Agnihotri) 13 Kirori Mal College (Delhi) 105 Kohlapur Corpus 180 Kopf, David 11; British Orientalism 11 Lauter, Paul 158–59; Canons and Contexts 158–59 Lie of the Land (Rajan) 129, 162 Liverpool John Moores University 140 Liverpool University 138 London University 135, 138 Lukmani, Yasmeen 129–30 McArthur, Tom 180 McComiskey, Bruce 172; English Studies 172 Macaulay’s Minute on Education (1835) 13 Macaulay, Thomas Babington 13, 14, 24 Madras University 135 Manchester University 138 Mandal Commission 100 Maricopa Community Colleges 153 Masks of Conquest (Viswanathan) 10–13, 15–16 Mayawati (Mayawati Kumari) 69 MHRD (Ministry of Human Resource Development) 28, 32, 66–7, 84–5, 144 Middle States Commission for Higher Education (MSCHE, USA) 155–56 Model Curriculum for English (2001, UGC) 26–7, 29–32 Modern Language Association (MLA, USA) 156, 168; Task Force on Doctoral Study 160 Mudaliar, A.L. 24 Mukherjee, Alok 13, 15–18; Gift of English 13, 15–18 Nagarajan, S 8, 29 National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC, India) 52, 144, 155 National Association of Writers in Education (NAWE, UK) 143 National Curriculum Framework (2005) (NCERT) 44, 64

National Eligibility Test (NET, India) 108–09 National Knowledge Commission (India) 26, 33–5, 64, 182 National Policy on Education (NPE, India) 23–4, 31 National Sample Survey Office (NSSO, India) 82–3 National Student Survey (UK) 145–46 National Vocational Education and Qualifications Framework (2012, India) 44 NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training, India) 25, 26, 33, 63, 64; National Curriculum Framework (2005) 44, 64 Newbolt Report (1921) 136–37 Newcastle University 138 Niranjana, Tejaswani 8 Obama, Barack 154 O’Hanlon, Rosalind 9 Orientalism (Said) 8, 11, 12 Oxford University 139 Panel for English (1993, UGC) 26–9, 31–2, 33 Pathak, Akshay 178 Pennycook, Alastair 180 Phoenix University 154 Planning Commission (India) 36 Poddar, Prem 13, 175 Pope, Rob 172; English Studies Book 172 postcolonial studies ix, 8, 12, 173, 174 Princeton University 154 Problematizing English (Agnihotri and Khanna) 13 Professing Literature (Graff) 157–58, 175–76 Programme of Action (MHRD, 1992) 23–5 publishing 62–3, 177–78 Quality Assurance Agency (QAA, UK) 140–41, 142, 143, 144, 146 Quirk, Randolph 180 QS Univer­sity Rankings 146

Index 217 Radhakrishnan, R. 158 Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli 24 Rai, Alok 6, 8 Raina, Badri 8 Rajan, Rajeswari Sunder 6, 10, 129, 162; Lie of the Land 129, 162 Rajdhani College (Delhi) 128, 129 Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (2013) 36, 148–49 Regent’s University 147 Rethinking English (Joshi) 8, 13, 162 Right to Education Act (2009, India) 34, 44, 64 Robbins Report (1963) 138–39 Roy, Modhumita 18 Rutgers University 154

Subject to Change (Tharu) 7 Survey of English Usage (SEU) 180 Sussex University 138

Saha, Meghnad 24 Said, Edward 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 35, 137, 158; Orientalism 8, 11, 12; Culture and Imperialism 35 St. Stephen’s College (Delhi) 105, 107, 126–27 Sanghari, Kumkum 8 Scholes, Robert 157, 158, 160, 161, 163, 166 Shastri, S.V. 29, 180 Sheth, D.L. 161 Shivaji College, Delhi 46 Shulze-Engler, Frank 162 Sontag, Susan 35, 60 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty 8, 9–10, 165 Shri Ram College (Delhi) 51, 107 Smith, Larry E. 180 Student Loans Company (UK) 145 Subaltern Studies 8–10, 15

UGC (University Grants Commission) x-xi, 25, 26–32, 36, 65, 67, 80, 85–6, 109, 144, 183; Model Curriculum for English (2001) 26–7, 29–32; Panel for English (1993) 26–9, 31–2, 33 UK Trade and Industry (UKTI) 182 Union Public Services Commission (UPSC, India) 22–3, 37 University Education Commission (1948–9, India) 24, 33

Tagore, Rabindranath 31 Task Force on Doctoral Study (MLA) 160 Tata Institute for Social Sciences 124 Tharu, Susie 5, 7, 8; Subject to Change 7 theory 4, 8, 9–10, 15, 152, 158, 162, 164 translation studies 15, 34, 36, 49–50, 55, 68–70, 73, 74, 163, 164–65, 173, 176–77 Trautmann, Thomas 17; Aryans and British India 17 Trivedi, Harish 8, 128

Viswanathan, Gauri 10–13, 15–16; Masks of Conquest 10–13, 15–16 Warner, Marina 144 Wood, Michael 137 Wood’s Despatch (1854) 135 Yash Pal Committee (2009) 32, 64 York University 138