[unedited] Mr. Editor
 
    James Lewis might have some misgivings about pervailing culture in United Kingdom, and he is right about American Heritage owning up to British Empire. However, to suggest that, and I quote " India's rising prosperity and modernization owes much to the English language" is bit amusing. Language is a medium of Communication, and it ends there. There is nothing in English leading one's prosperity. Of course, if one is convinced, than nothing can be said otherwise. When British Ruled India, Indian economy grew 0.8% annually from 1900s to 1950. In 18th Century, india was the richest Country. In present establishment, it is one of the poorest. British Empire systematically destroyed Indian industrial house, just so it could sell its product to Indian Market. Briton became a textile power house backed by India's raw material. By looking at your exceptionalist American Publication, i am sure, i am writing this in complete waste of Energy. But it is my hope that i will hit someone somewhere.... Stop White washing British Empire History! America did not want it on its shores, so did India.
 
Regards
 
    Please pass down to James Lewis!

The editor replies:

Anonymous,

Thank—you for writing.

However, you entirely misconstrue what Mr. Lewis was saying. Perhaps you are completely unfamiliar with the business and economic realities of India's prosperity? Widespread English proficiency is credited with a major role in the current growth dynamics of India's prosperity. Perhaps a look at (for example) The Economist would be in order.  Or pick any other reasonably sophisticated source of information.

We have repeatedly written about the immediate and significant economic advantage India enjoys because of the existence of a highly educated relatively inexpensive labor force fluent in English. Only a few days ago, I wrote about Reuters off—shoring editing tasks to Bangalore. The money and modernity which flow into India from this and many other English skill—dependent jobs are transforming the economy and society of India.

Mr. Lewis, a sophisticated man, was not referring to any magical properties of English that endowed it with the ability to hasten growth in all times. Until you wrote, such a premise never occurred to me, either. Frankly, I cannot believe that this is a serious criticism.

Based on your characterization of us as an 'exceptionalist American Publication' it would appear you have an ideological axe to grind. Based on your style I am guessing that you are not a native speaker of English. Based on your presentation of historical data, I am guessing you fancy yourself an intellectual.

But no guessing is necessary to know the sort of person who sends an unsigned letter attempting intellectual one—upsmanship: a man who knows his limits.

Thomas Lifson, editor