The declaration of New Education Policy has led to the end of “the Macaulay era of education” which was dominant in Indian subcontinent for almost 200 years. The New Education Policy or the future discourses on education will be focusing on the languages, culture, traditional knowledge systems and the living conditions of India.
It is surprising that certain efforts are being made in splendour to eulogize the ideals of Lord Macaulay. Some of the English media are trying to glorify the ideas of Lord Macaulay and for this purpose, they are using a post, which is being circulated in Social Media, claimed to be that of Macualay’s, as a propaganda. They cry, ‘Lord Macaulay never gave this speech to UK Parliament’, ‘The infamous Macaulay speech that never was’, ‘No, Lord Macaulay did not advocate replace India’s culture’, …. They almost theorised that Lord Macaulay’s ideas are not intended to destroy the cultural identity of India.
The content of the message is regarding Lord Macaulay’ s deliberation of the “Minute on Education” which happened on 2nd February 1835 in the “British Parliament”. In the post, Macaulay argues that the British rule cannot be established in India unless they ruin the spiritual and cultural heritage, which is the backbone of India. But the “social media experts” are coming up with some fragmented arguments in order to glorify Lord Macaulay.
They argue that Macaulay had not addressed the British Parliament on that day and that the British Parliament did not even convene on the same day. They also argue that Macaulay would have been in Calcutta or travelling by ship on that date. Since it is unlikely that such a speech was made by Macaulay on the same day, the ideas of the “Minute on Education” does not belong to him is what they argue. Here the arguments of the “Children of Macaulay” who want to vindicate him seem to be contentious when they argue that “Macaulay has not tried to replace the Indian culture with that of the British or the notorious deliberation of Macaulay had not happened at all”.
Apparently, it does not seem so simple to believe that those who have tried to “re- search” on the topic are innocent truth seekers. There can be certain problems behind the authenticity of a note that has gone viral in the social media. This issue can also be viewed as having global dimensions. The evidence for the same can be discerned when we examine the same post that has gone viral with diminutive differences, in African countries.
It does not demand any investigative journalism to know where Macaulay was or where his deliberation had taken place. It is clear that there is no point in searching in British libraries or the Parliamentary records of Great Britain. We have to understand that the “Minute on Education” had not taken place in the Parliament of Great Britain. It happened in the Council of India which was the British Parliament of India, the way the British addressed it, whose headquarters was in Calcutta. In fact, the truth-seeking investigators had to pursue the source of this post in the first place.
Those who are in the backstage of the play which establishes the sainthood of Lord Macaulay should know about the circumstances that led to the making of the India Government Charter (law) in British Parliament in 1833. As per the law, the British government integrated the territories which led to the formation of a Supreme Council centred in Calcutta. The vigorous arguments of Macaulay, the then MP of Leeds, had given the strength to the British Parliament to resist the opposition from different corners and to enforce the law. The long speech made by him in the Parliament and the letters written to his sister, Hannah M. Macaulay testify the diligence shown by Macaulay in enacting the law in the Parliament.
Macaulay’s appointment as the Law Member of the Supreme Council of India, which was established legally, was given as a compliment or as a token of gratitude to him. In his Parliamentary orations, we can see not only his legal expertise but mastery over language. It is stay tuned with the hegemonic attitude of the English and his ideology of the Indians as the “uncivilised”. Britain wanted to curtail the growth of the influence of the Orientalists in the European countries and a well in India, through the young dynamic Macaulay. Macaulay writes to his sister Hannah on August 17 in 1833,
“By the new India Bill it is provided that one of the members of the Supreme Council, which is to govern our Eastern empire, is to be chosen from among persons who are not servants of the company. It is probable, indeed nearly certain, that the situation will be offered to me….. The advantages are very great. It is a post of the highest dignity and consideration. The salary is ten thousand pounds a year. I am assured by persons who know Calcutta intimately, and who have themselves mixed in the highest circles and held the highest offices at that presidency, that I may live in splendor there for five thousand a year, and may save the rest of the salary with the accruing interest. I may therefore hope to return to England at only thirty-nine, in the full vigor of life, with a fortune of thirty thousand pounds. A larger fortune I never desired.”
After the passing of Government of India Act in 1833, Macaulay was appointed as the first Law member of the first Governor- General Lord William Bentick’s Indian council. He continued in the council as a member till 1839. So, it is evident that Macaulay has not presented his “Minute on Education” in the British Parliament. He has presented it in the Council of India. The Council of India, established by the Charter Act of 1833, is the legislative body of the British Government in India and Britain considered it as the Government of India.
We can also see that H.T Prinsep, the Education Secretary of the East India Company at that time, tried to defend the arguments of Macaulay. But the Council had approved the proposal of Macaulay without any major amendments on March 7, 1835. And it is termed as the English Education Act of 1835 which is the legislative Act of the Council of India.
It should be also noted that the members of the Council of India had presented two different opinions regarding the Education system in India (Native / Western) on 21st and 22nd January. This has led to the division of Counsels. Under these circumstances, the Governor- General appointed a General Committee of Public Instruction to sort out the problems. Macaulay was “rightly chosen” as the President of the Committee. As the President of the Committee, he had presented the Minutes in 1835. The arguments made by Secratary of Education H.T Prinsep were rejected as technical ones and the Act was enforced legally in the Council.
Macaulay was able to articulate for its cause inside the Council during those times. It is interesting to note that no one is bothered about the arguments made by Macaulay to strengthen the cause of English education in India, by replacing our indigenous system of Education, as a part of colonial enterprise. Anyways it is obvious that he wanted to replace the old and ancient education system in India by reinforcing English education in India. As Macaulay sums up his Minute on Education,
“We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect” his intention was to completely destroy the Indian system of Education and establish a new one to replace as suitable for European Imperialism.”
He is again reestablishing the same in his letter to his father Mr. Zachariah Macaulay on October 12 of 1836,
“Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. We find it difficult, indeed at some places impossible, to provide instruction for all who want it. At the single town of Hoogley fourteen hundred boys are learning English. The effect of this education on the Hindoos is prodigious. No Hindoo who has received an English education ever continues to be sincerely attached to his religion. Some continue to profess it as a matter of policy. But many profess themselves pure Deists, and some embrace Christianity. The case with Mahometans is very different. The best-educated Mahometan often continues to be a Mahometan still. The reason is plain. The Hindoo religion is so extravagantly absurd that it is impossible to teach a boy astronomy, geography, natural history, without completely destroying the hold which that religion has on his mind. But the Mahometan religion belongs to a better family. It has very much in common with Christianity; and even where it is most absurd, it is reasonable when compared with Hindooism. It is my firm belief that, if our plans of education are followed up, there will not be a single idolater among the respectable classes in Bengal thirty years hence. And this will be effected without any efforts to proselytise, without the smallest interference with religious liberty, merely by the natural operation of knowledge and reglection. I heartily rejoice in this prospect….”
Macaulay should not be judged by the messages spread on social media as his speech. It should be through the books where his life and ideas are copied. “The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay” was published from New York in 1876 itself by his own nephew, George Otto Travalyan. Macaulay’s speeches were edited by himself and published in the World Classics in 1854. In 1935, the Oxford University Press republished the same with Education Minutes and an introduction of G. M Young. All of these are reflecting the British perspective. But we need the discernment to read things from an Indian perspective between those lines. The research done by some media is not to find the truth, but only to whitewash Macaulay. Only to give a go-ahead to those who oppose the new National Education Policy.
A.Vinod Karuvarakundu is a teacher and education activist. He is a Member of National Monitoring Committee for Education, Government of India.
©️ The contents of this article is property of The 4thth Estate. The publication of contents of this article without prior written permission of Editor, The 4th Estate would invite legal action.
