Post-colonial state expansion deepened rather than reversed colonial language structures

Evidence

In so far as the metropolitan language – English in the case of India – was the chief cultural and communicational instrument for the centralization of the bourgeois state in the colonial period, the continued use of this instrument in the dominant systems of administration, education and communication is, among other things, an index of the profound – almost genetic – cultural link between the colonial and post-colonial phases of the bourgeois state. The fact that English has proliferated, instead of declining, in this later phase indicates the greater elaboration and deeper penetration of the state into all aspects of civil society, through administration, profession, commerce, schooling, mediology; the state is the chief employer, the principal educator, the largest property-owner, the governor of electronics media. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory, 117

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Colonial English persists as an instrument of bourgeois state centralization. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 293; the MOC “The Tongue of Power: When Language Becomes the Battlefield of Empire”; the MOC “The Word Is a Fence: Language as Battleground, Property, and Partition”

Related

• Colonial English persists as an instrument of bourgeois state centralization. (similarity 0.92)
• English serves as the carrier medium of cultural and linguistic imperialism in globalization (similarity 0.85)
• English was justified as the necessary glue for a fragmented nation (similarity 0.81)
• English in India is simultaneously knowledge production, global connection, and class division (similarity 0.80)
• Inability to reconceive national unity kept English’s unifying role unchecked (similarity 0.80)
• An enlarged state concept transforms postcolonial-state theory away from instrumental models (similarity 0.80)
• Indian reformers embraced English as a scientific window, not a literary imposition (similarity 0.80)
• Decolonization produced a proliferation, not decline, of literature in colonial languages (similarity 0.79)
• Colonial India’s dominant intelligentsia adopted a stratified three-track language division (similarity 0.79)
• Literature and culture are not coterminous with language and state boundaries (similarity 0.79)
• Colonial language legacies still govern which texts circulate. (similarity 0.79)
• Colonial administration simply could not operate in its own imperial languages (similarity 0.78)
• Colonial intelligentsias are structurally compelled toward the colonizer’s language in public life (similarity 0.78)
• Only a materialist-comparatist frame can break the colonial grip on Indian English Studies. (similarity 0.78)