Summary of the Main Points
The recent public debate about reducing the weight of English in the college entrance examination has become a heated argument, with many people misinterpreting the call for lowering test scores and improving English education as a proposal to eliminate English as a core subject, leading to a black-and-white argument. This article takes a different approach by using India, the world's second-largest English-speaking country, as a real-world example to clarify the role of English. English is a useful tool for communication, but it is by no means the key to a country's strength. Treating it as an ultimate goal can lead to a path of dependency, similar to India's situation, which has hindered its industrialization and technological development.
---
Detailed and Accessible Explanation
1. The debate about English is fundamentally misplaced
The online debate is polarized: one side argues that English is useless and should be eliminated, while the other side accuses those who oppose it of being isolationist. However, both sides are falling into the traps set by those who are deliberately stirring up controversy. Tang Jiafeng, who first proposed adjusting the weight of English in the exam, never suggested eliminating English altogether; she only suggested reducing the score from 150 to 100 points. Schools should continue to teach and test English as usual.
What we really need to discuss is not whether to learn English, but whether the current English education system is a waste of time. The current approach in middle schools focuses on rote memorization of vocabulary, practicing outdated grammar that foreigners no longer use, and teaching skills that make students hesitant to speak. Most people spend thousands of hours learning English from middle school to university, only to find that it is hardly useful in real life. Apart from those working in foreign trade or cutting-edge research, 90% of graduates will never use English in their careers. This means that teenagers are spending their most valuable time on a skill that is practically useless.
2. English in India is not a key to its strength; it is a result of colonization and internal divisions
Many people envy Indians for their English proficiency, thinking they have a natural linguistic advantage. However, this advantage was not chosen by India itself. English was established as the official language by British colonizers to create a class of local elites with Indian heritage but British tastes. These elites came from high-caste, wealthy backgrounds, and ordinary people had no access to English.
After independence, India faced the challenge of over 1,500 dialects. When attempts were made to make Hindi the national language, the southern states resisted, so English became the neutral official language. Today, English has become a new form of caste system in India: top private schools, engineering colleges, civil service exams, and high-end jobs use English, while public schools in rural areas use local languages. As a result, children from poor backgrounds have fewer opportunities to enter good universities, and those who speak fluent English earn 30%-50% more than those who don't. English has thus created a barrier between different social classes.
3. With 200 million English speakers, why hasn't India become the world's strongest country?
Tang Jiafeng's statement that English could have made India strong is not a joke; it reflects reality. India has 260 million English speakers, more than the combined populations of Germany and Japan, but its economy is less than half that of Germany, and its manufacturing sector accounts for only 15% of GDP. India has not developed a complete industrial system.
The reason is simple: English is a bridge, not a driving force. Even with a large number of English speakers, India mainly serves as a supplier to European and American companies, doing software outsourcing, call center work, and customer service. While English helps in some tasks, it does not enable India to build high-speed railways, deep-water ports, or develop advanced technologies, nor does it help lift millions of rural poor people out of poverty.
Moreover, the ease of using English has led to a reliance on copying Western ideas and patents, rather than investing in costly, time-consuming research and development. India's R&D spending accounts for only 0.8% of GDP, less than one-third of China's. Despite being independent for nearly 80 years, India has not produced a world-class technology company, and its elites mostly support Western systems rather than pursuing original innovation.
4. Improving English education means not mistaking the bridge for the destination
By looking at India's example, we realize that reducing the weight of English in exams and improving education is not about isolationism but about avoiding India's mistakes. English is certainly useful, especially for global business, cutting-edge research, and international communication. However, we should not elevate its status above our native language and other essential subjects, forcing children to spend years on useless exam preparation at the expense of learning practical skills and local culture. This would be a waste of time and resources.
More importantly, we should not become dependent on Western ideas, using English as a barrier to talent. If we let ordinary families spend tens of thousands of rupees on English education while ignoring children with real talents in science and practical skills, we will hinder our own technological and industrial advancement.
---
Final Conclusion
In short, English is a tool, just like a kitchen knife. You can use it to cook, but you can't treat it as a family heirloom and require everyone to obtain a certification before using it, whether they need it or not. The key to a strong country lies in producing quality products, developing advanced technologies, and ensuring that everyone can use their native language for learning and innovation. English cannot provide these things.