In order to disprove the fact that language spread is often not the rosy picture painted by politicians the effect on the recipients of this “education” must be examined, after all most “good deeds” are far from altruistic and usually have benefits or advantages for the ”doer”, some believe true altruism doesn’t exist at all. So unless this politically selfish “stealth tactic” causes any damage to those who supposedly benefit is there any harm in its provision?

Kramsch (1998) puts forward the Sapir’s Whorf principle of linguistic relativity as evidence that taking away someone’s language or making it redundant in everyday life is actually culturally damaging, as according to the theory different languages offer different ways of perceiving and expressing the world around us, thus leading their speakers to conceive the world in different ways. If this intrinsic link to one’s birth culture is removed surely there will be some harmful effect? Proof of this is perhaps found in various resistances shown to English Language Teaching throughout history and the reasons its resistors provide.

English has a history of imposition for material and political reasons in most periphery communities more often than not it is in competition with local/native languages. In 1796 the British colonized the ethno-linguistically diverse island of Ceylon under one political umbrella, they imposed English as the national language and went about setting up English schools at both secondary and Tertiary levels, this education not only included language lessons but discipline (in keeping with that usually found in British public schools) and Protestant teachings. Students were often expected to board to be protected from outside cultural and linguistic influence. This education was needed for particular jobs but was only available to those able to pay the fees, Christians were given preferential treatment with regard to admission and most students finished their education having been converted to Christianity regardless of previous cultural and religious beliefs, in the main natives competed to be given an English education, mainly because the Tamils defined themselves by religion and not language. The native “church” devised a mission which offered Western (English) scholarships to students who promised not to desert their religion, this enabled natives to embrace the new language without in the main losing cultural identity. This is not to say the program was without opposition, many natives accepted the Christianity they were compelled to in public, but continued to practice Hinduism in private, not all forms of opposition were as subtle as this. Tamil scholars were sometimes vocal with regard to the “English only” education of younger generations, Amanda Coomarasamy called the English educated natives a “generation of spiritual bastards” (1946:32) adding in explanation: “A single generation of English education suffices to break the threads of tradition and to create a nondescript and superficial being deprived of all roots.” A fellow scholar Sir Arunachalam commented:”The root of the evil in Ceylon is that the vernacular is neglected”. (Undated: 261-2).