A Brief about "Globalizing English Studies in India" by Harish Narang

A Brief About “Globalizing English Studies in India” by Harish Narang

         Name: Riddhi Jani

Roll no: 23

Semester: 3rd

Paper: 12, English Language Teaching 1

Submitted to: S. B. Gardy Department of English

Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University

·        Introduction:

        Harish Narang is very renowned person in the field of language studies. He is working in JNU (Jawaharlal Nehru University). He has written his article named “Globalizing English Studies in India”. His subject is African Literature also. In this article also he connects African writings. I am doing a small attempt to simplify this article, and also I am giving my own views on the article.  

        This article is in three parts, which ultimately tells us that how English studies work in India? And how our people see it as a part of global studies? These are the three parts:

1.  Introduction of African Literature in context of this article

2.  Some academic anecdotes

3.  Deduction and Narang’s case for a radical relook at the cannons of English studies in India

Harish Narang seems too much connected with African Literature. His main concern is that “why most of the Indian universities haven’t African literature as a main part or as a full paper in their syllabus?” And also most of the colleges and departments of English has lesser concern for other literatures such as Australian Literature, Indian Literature, and Canadian Literature than English literature.

It is true that African, Indian or any other literature except English literature is not popular and also not in the field of interest of many universities and students. Harish Narang brings out this fact. But his main subject is how the globalization of English literature takes place. He thinks that “why not Chinua Achebe?” And “why Milton and Shakespeare?” He visited many universities and many colleges amongst India. And he wondered that how a big part of students are too far from many great literary works! And it is because of the craze for ‘only’ English literature.

·      Introduction of African Literature:

        It seems strange but in this beginning of the presentation, Narang gives the introduction of African writings. But it has the context of this article’s matter. He is too near to African writings, even nearer than English literature. I quote him:

“I distinctly remember being asked by a very senior Professor from the North-‘Chinua who?’- When I tried to explain to him the authors I taught as a part of my paper on African literature. It was more than just ignorance.”

        He criticizes those, who makes fun of the strange African names, who thinks (still) English literature as the best of all literatures, who are not ready to allow other literatures to come with English Literature. His anger is reasonable and proper also.

        And Narang then started hard tries to formulate African writing inEnglish as syllabus in various universities of India. He did very much hard work to spread it and to put it into study practice. He wrote many articles, journals and books on African Literature, when invited. He got success also in his mission. After his efforts many universities gave African writings a space of full paper in their syllabus. Many students took interest in it as a part of their M.Phil., Ph.D dissertations.

·      Some anecdotes, Narang has shared:

        These anecdotes are also related with his concern about African writing and people’s obsession for English literature. I am briefly putting those anecdotes, which Narang has talked about.

Ø First one is about his student. She gave an interview in a famous university of Delhi, an interview of college teacher. And she was asked for some lines from Dryden’s poetry. She couldn’t answer and she lost the chance of getting the job. And Narang says about the mentality of those English-loving professors:

“Not to be able to quote from a British poet whose writings were a part of the syllabus and course content in most Indian universities was a big sin in the eyes of this professor.”

Ø And then, his other student also faced the same problem by being asked for the publication dates of all the plays of Shakespeare.

Ø This is another incident of his being chief of a seminar on Shakespeare. There were three speakers. Two of them were the scholars from USA. And third one was from the department of Delhi University. Amongst them one scholar spoke about Kalidasa’s very well known play “Abhigyan Shakuntalam”. And then, one professor of Shakespeare from the audience, literally quarreled with the scholar. As he was too much obsessed by Shakespeare, he couldn’t bear even a bit of criticism about Shakespeare, which that scholar did.

Ø And now the last anecdote. Narang says about his one student, who teaches in Delhi University. When she was asked by Narang about her teaching syllabus she answered that she teaches “Restoration Comedy” in general and a play by William Congreve in particular. But Narang adds that she and her student were not at all interested in this type of syllabus.

These all incidents are suggestive. And after putting it Narang says about his concern: “…it did set me thinking – once again- about the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ of the English studies in India.”

·      Deduction and Radical Relook at the Canons of English Studies in India:

        Harish Narang very keenly sees the small aspects of spoken and written form of English language in India. According to him, still in our country, we do not change our ways of using English language. As English is living language, it is always changing. And we have to accept the changes. Still our schools and colleges give curriculum to students, in which the old and colonial type of English is there. Even they do not change the speaking style according to time.

        Narang gives the example of teaching letter and application writing in schools and colleges. He calls it “the strict, rigid, empire-given manner of starting and ending a letter.” Teachers are so much conditioned that they do not accept any even good change in this style. All students are forced to write in that old manner. Narang says interestingly:

“Has any one-any teacher- ever wondered as to why did the British teachers in colonial times insist on that particular format? We were in master-servant relationship with them…”

        Narang says about the letter format which starts with “I beg to slate that…” and ends with “yours faithfully”. And we still adhere to that format. It means, we still do not come out from the colonial mind set. This format was taught by Britishers to us and its connotations say about their instinct to see us as their slaves. And he also notes about that colonial statement that “Kalidasa was the Shakespeare of India.” He is against it because Kalidasa was preceding Shakespeare, so they should say that “Shakespeare was Kalidasa of England”.

        Harish Narang’s views are leading us to think in post-colonial way. He seems very much against to English or rather colonial mind-set of seeing them superior than us. Our concern is about “Globalizing English Studies in India”. For that Narang says quite strange thing that English Literature was studied and taught in India before it was studied in England herself. He gives reason for it:

“The British needed to introduce such a program of study here in India but they did not need to introduce such a program of study in England- at least not at that point time.”

And Narang further says:

“Thus we were forced to study these British authors as representatives of a superior literature, superior culture. Since the British had no such point to prove back home in England, there was no need to introduce such a program of study…”

        So, in this way Narang continues his arguments. And thus, he gives the answer of that question, “why English studies in India?”, that is because of making our mind constructed and conditioned.

 

        Narang is not biased for English studies or literature. But he sees it objectively. And further he says that Shakespeare or Keats had some worth and value, but all English writers had not. And according to Narang English colonizers used English studies as weapon for conditioning our minds. It was done and still is being done. Still we cannot come out from that mental slavery. Behind these all their purpose was to take our own heritage from us and to give us their culture, their (so called) civilization, their life style & thoughts everything. Narang rightly says:

“How stupid, how utterly stupid for a nation of one billion independent people to go on studying year after year writers and authors who have no relevance to our lives, our culture, our history, our vision, our anything!”

        He seems against Congreve, Dryden, Pope and Austen kind of writers, who were concerned with only their own culture and life. The main interest is this that if the other literature like Indian, African, Australian are in the part of syllabus, then also, they are not in main/compulsory course. They are given as optional or ‘appendage’ kind of course. Main or chief course is only English Literature.

Narang here connects a study of one linguist named David Crystal. He is a renowned British linguist, whose study says that English speaking English persons are now very small minority. He says that globalization impacts English language and so, English has become changing or evolving language. Now, English is not at all in its original and pure form. Narang says:

“My contention is that what is true of English language and its teaching/learning today is equally true-if not more- of English literature.”

        In short, English language became more regional than the original British. Narang says that with changing of English language, many countries create their own literature in English, rather than the regional language. Now we can understand his question that why STILL English literature (with its culture and all other things) is the main part of syllabus, while we have many cultures, people and their thoughts to study in English language?

·      Conclusion with my views on the article:

        The views and thoughts of Harish Narang are going into the Postcolonial arena. His anger is at some extent right also. And the title is also appropriate “Globalizing English Studies in India”. India or most of the part of India is still in the mind set of colonialism. They are still in the influence of English culture and literature, while we have our own literature (in English) to feel pride for.

        He is not favoring only Indian literature. But he wants to insist that there are many other literatures with great potential to study and to understand. And most of them are in English language. I agree with this thing that not only we Indians, but every country who was once colonized should come out from such mental slavery, and should give scope to other literatures also, except only English literature.

        But I have some counter arguments also for it, that Harish Narang seems partially angry for English literature. We should not forget that we became able to write our literature in English only because of this colonization. Some may argue that English became global language that is also because of this colonization. But in answer, I want to say that didn’t the whole world need one global language to interact in coming globalization era? They gave their language by their literature to the world. I agree that there are many literatures better than English literature. But as we accepted their language, we must accept their literature, without any bias. And after all, no literature can be fully best or great. In every literature there are some (or many) loopholes and limitations.

        And I recall here one anonymous argument that “Britishers made great mistake by giving their language to world.” We became able to see their shrewdness and their mentality only because we were given education of their language and literature. In this way their mistake became our benefit. So, it is good to see anything objectively without favoring anything and without keeping bias for anything.