Resistance to change a language is not realistic as it invites stagnation in learning and social structure instability. Most of the resistance can be attributed to the religious and traditional background of the person resisting it because of some kind of emotional attachment towards it. Considering English language when it has already reached a peak point where it is regarded as a universally spoken language, and when it has become more of a necessity and not a compulsion, it is not realistic to avoid it. Moreover, resisting a language for the sake of not liking it is not ethical. When the language tends to overlap with another one in terms of different meaning, it is justified to be explained better and avoid any confusion if any. Some words or sentence may have two different meanings and thus it is ideal to explain the difference and willingly and respectfully accept each other’s differences rather than resisting it. Resisting a language could give a meaning of resisting it due to un-liking it, and this could create misalignment in people’s thinking. In order to clear such misunderstanding, the only way is conveying it through a language, so it is the basis of a society’s existence and interaction. Language must be learned and used for intergenerational communication (McMohan, 1994). Change is always out of anyone’s control, so fighting to avoid it and resisting it will not give desired results. Change is the result of collective actions of humans on the planet that is being felt by everyone. It is not possible to change everyone’s attitude and thinking process, and hence change is inevitable, and language is no exception.