Lord MacAulay’s Speech to British Parliament 1835

Repost from the old site.

I received this graphic in an email from an interesting colleague, Vijendra Rao, a fellow journalist in Mysore, India.

His interesting and intelligent blog, though written in impeccable English, is nevertheless rather difficult and somewhat inaccessible to non-Indian viewers due to the Indian English discourse style and the fact that it is deeply seated in Indian culture and politics.

Click it and read the MacAulay quote, if you are interested.

Note: I am a little upset, for it appears that I have been taken again. Research reveals that this quote is apparently a fake quote, made up out of whole cloth by devious Hindu nationalists. Nationalists, of course, being some of the worst liars on Earth. See here for an analysis of this quote that seems to reveal its fabricated nature.

Piss on the Hindu nationalist dog who made up this crap and knowingly distributed this lie across the Internet, and shame on all the Hindu nationalist liars who either don’t have the guts or who are too twisted by nationalist mental illness to figure out when they have been had.

Anyway, whether or not he actually said this, British colonialism, like any colonialism, was not exactly beneficial to the Indian people, no matter how much those nostalgic for colonialism may swoon.

You may be interested to know that there is still an element of British and Anglophiles out there (often in former colonies like Canada) who yet swoon for the lost days of the British Empire. They continue to carry on about how glorious Her Majesty’s imperial reign was to all of her poor backwards subjects.

Many of those in Britain tend to call themselves Conservative and vote Tory. Niall Ferguson, apparently a native of Canada and a professor of Financial History at New York University, is a particularly dangerous example of this trend, although Ferguson has decided that the United States is now the de facto Former British Empire and needs to grab the baton.

Look, darn it. Colonists have never been saints. All colonialism has always ultimately been about one bottom line item – the loot! Any reasonable historical analysis of the history of colonialism, from Rome to Iraq, ought to make that clear.

Sorry for getting taken again, but at least I have the decency to admit when I’ve been scammed.

I would like to make this post as an example for the “There are no conspiracies” crowd. This disgusting mindset has wormed its way deeply into the mindset of US and Israeli citizens and their supporters in all over the world.

But in most of the rest of world, there is much more support for conspiracy than in the US, where the oh-so-educated elite classes have a strong dislike of conspiracy theory.

In Israel too, and amongst its supporters worldwide, there is a strong dislike of conspiracy theory, which is odd considering that the nation has an incredibly sleazy business class and an ultra-devious political class, both of which engage in machinations with the same casual unthinkingness that rest of us apply to tasks like eating and eliminating.

The ferocity and puzzlement with which most Americans and Israelis reject all conspiracy theory implies that those who are some of the worst conspirators will always be among those who condemn conspiracy theory most strongly. It’s just a case of denial and projection, Freudian defenses widely used by abusers and aggressive personalities everywhere.

In the rest of world, even on the Right and amongst the elites, rich and business classes, there is strong support for conspiracy theory, which is an interesting phenomenon. Most of the world resents Western (especially US) imperialism and a lot of the world has had a negative experience with Western colonialism pretty recently (in the past century).

We could probably plot on a graph the hostility of a given nation to US imperialism and its history of being colonized by the West to that population’s support for conspiracy theory.

This is something that needs to be explained. Leaving aside for a moment that many conspiracy theories are flat out wrong, we still need to examine the enthusiasm for conspiracy theory in those countries, especially amongst elites who one would expect would deny most conspiracy theories (since elites the world over tend to spend much more of their time engaging in actual conspiracies than your average person).

Once a nation has had a recent history of being colonized or has had the “mugger with a gun to your head” feeling of being threatened by a major imperialist state (nowadays, the US), afterwards, that nation no longer seems to trust anyone, has a cynical view of international relations and expects the worst out of most other countries, especially powerful countries.

This must be akin to the distrust, cynicism, rage, heightened suspiciousness and wariness that we see in people who have been victimized by some sort of victimizer. The formerly colonized countries, and those abused and menaced by imperialism, develop something like Crime Victim Syndrome, along with an attitude of “never again”.

Just as victimizers seldom or never admit their abuse and always blame the poor soul they are abusing, so do the imperialist countries and guilty defenders of Western colonialism whitewash colonialism and deny that imperialism even exists in our modern era. Even if they say it exists, they will often counter with something silly like, “The only imperialists were the Soviets”, or “The only imperialists are Muslims”.

There are also a few other insipid rejoinders, including the notion that US imperialism only applies to the period, reaching its peak with Teddy Roosevelt, when the US actually held colonies and waged blatantly imperialist wars. Any attempts to build on that foundation to note that one does not need colonies to be an imperialist country are met with anger and blank, uncomprehending stares, even from strong liberals.

The notion that one’s nation is a vicious, criminal, imperialist bully of the most cruel, menacing, domineering and exploitative type is just too much for most Americans to bear. Since most Americans are patriots, valid criticism like that feels like a kick in the gut. Americans like me who point out the obvious are told that we hate our country, love the enemies of our nation and need to get the Hell out of the US now.

Americans need a crash course in imperialist theory. After all, why not study imperialism? It only undergirds out entire planet, like the moon, the tides, the weather and the axis we rotate on. One could start with Lenin’s seminal essay, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, but there are many others one could dip into, including Noam Chomsky, Gabriel Kolko, Chambers Johnson and John Pilger.

The problem is it takes a long time to fully comprehend US imperialism; such are its convoluted, deceptive and torturous contours. I spent years in deep study of it before I even began to connect the dots. Most people don’t have the interest or the time to do that.

The story of imperialism is not an argument about the veracity of a quote by a British colonist 170 hours ago. It is powerful countries and nations all over the world in 2006, and in every year going back for centuries. Imperialism now is much the same as the imperialism of decades or centuries ago.

We could almost state that imperialism is normative human behavior, like wars and wife-beatings and homicide. Not a good behavior at all, but a human tendency that needs to be combated by all progressive humans who do not wish to morally devolve.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.


Filed under Britain, Colonialism, Conspiracies, Conspiracy Theories, Europe, Hinduism, Imperialism, India, Israel, Middle East, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Religion, Reposts From The Old Site, Sociology, South Asia, Ultranationalism, USA

44 responses to “Lord MacAulay’s Speech to British Parliament 1835

  1. jameson7

    You should watch “2016:Obama’s America” with Indian-born American convert to Christianity Dinesh D’souza. It’s him saying over and over for an hour in a half that Obama is an anti-colonialist who apparently reminds him of his anti-colonialist family in India. Apparently being a colonialist is a mandatory requirement upon conversion.

  2. C H Ingoldby

    I’m surprised anyone would think that quote real, even for a moment. It doesn’t read like something any contemporary British politician would have ever said, let alone actually believe. Oddly, the prevailing British attitude was one of respect for and interest in India civilisation and culture. Any politician speaking such words would have been loudly and roundly condemned as a boorish oaf.

    In 1835 there was no direct rule from Britain, the British Parliament did not run or seek to run India. Instead, British control was via the East India Company, a commercial operation that generally preferred to leave the business of ruling Indians to Indian rulers. Colonisation wasn’t of interest, as long as the British could keep out European rivals they were content. It was only after the Indian Mutiny that the British government stepped in to impose political control.

    As for Imperialism, if you think the Imperialism of the mid 1800’s is the same as the behaviour of the USA today then I think that your definition of Imperialism is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. I’d certainly be suspicious of any definition of Imperialism from such cultural masochists as John Pilger.

    • Subhash

      The Crown certainly did not directly rule India in 1835 but the East India Company ALWAYS had the Crown backing it financially. Historians (from Canada and Britain, not India) have confirmed that the British could not have succeeded against the Marathas in the great Anglo-Maratha wars of 1800-1804 without the financial support of the British Crown. In all other respects the Marathas had the upper hand- weapons, strategic acumen and individual bravery. Bloggers spend too much time writing and too little actually studying what they write about!

    • lord

      What are you talking about.

      The English did what George Bush Jr did in iraq…Make up stories to their own constituents that what they are doing there is saving the poor people…a nd the invasion and occupation is a moral thing to do

      • Nevertheless, what the European empires did to these countries is inexplicably atrocious and in many ways comparable to a holocaust in its own right. Moving people under the name of slavery from their motherland to unknown places far, far away in the name of cheap labor, destroying each of these countries’ cultural identity and don’t even get me started with the loots that these countries pillaged from the Indian subcontinent, which sometimes seem to me no lesser than pedophilia!

  3. Pingback: ‘Indian history was distorted by the British’ - Page 9

  4. Norman

    Read “Two Cheers for Colonialism” by Dinesh D’Souza.

    • Jebus

      D’Souza is Another desi christian ahole

      • allimcbiel

        D’Souza is the kind of desi fella Robert Lindsey rails about how Indians are selfish and don’t care for anyone else. Which is so true.

        Dinesh is happy for colonization because he and his family benefitied.. This is the same logic some Germans who lost wealth during WWII bemoan the loss of the Nazies.

        Come to think of it, the Holocause and the Goa Inquisition are both done by Catholics…the religion of D’souza the prick.

        • India_landoofRapes

          Goa was colonized by india, Currently Goa is swimming in Hindu sewer…Goa has become Drug den, There are many “Indians not welcome” boards in Goa, many UP, Biharis and indian youth are known for open air defecation and molesting Foreign tourists.There are several incidents where some youth have raped and killed 31 year old russian women and her 9 year old kid at gunpoint

        • allimcbiel

          I believe that Russia girl was raped by a nice goold ole Goa Christian man

        • allimcbiel

          But JEsus forgave him right away since the Goan christian believes in Jesus..so this rapist would go to the kingdom of heaven

  5. BSD

    From his speech in 1833 to Parliament:

    “In what state, then, did we find India? And what have we made
    India? We found society throughout that vast country in a state to
    which history scarcely furnishes a parallel. The nearest parallel would,
    perhaps, be the state of Europe during the fifth century. The Mogul
    empire in the time of the successors of Aurungzebe, like the Roman
    empire in the time of the successors of Theodosius, was sinking
    under the vices of a bad internal administration, and under the
    assaults of barbarous invaders. At Delhi, as at Ravenna, there was a
    mock sovereign, immured in a gorgeous state prison. He was suffered to indulge in every sensual pleasure. He was adored with servile prostrations….Society was a chaos. Its
    restless and shifting elements formed themselves every moment into
    some new combination, which the next moment dissolved. In the
    course of a single generation a hundred dynasties grew up, flourished, decayed, were extinguished, were forgotten. Every adventurer
    who could muster a troop of horse might aspire to a throne. Every
    palace was every year the scene of conspiracies, treasons, revolutions, parricides. Meanwhile a rapid succession of Alarics and Attilas
    passed over the defenceless empire. A Persian invader penetrated to
    Delhi, and carried back in triumph the most precious treasures of
    the House of Tamerlane. The Afghan soon followed by the same
    track, to glean whatever the Persian had spared. The Jauts established themselves on the Jumna. The Seiks devastated Lahore. Every part of India, from Tanjore to the Himalayas, was laid under
    contribution by the Mahrattas. The people were ground down to
    the dust by the oppressor without and the oppressor within, by the
    robber from whom the Nabob was unable to protect them, by the
    Nabob who took whatever the robber had left to them. All the evils
    of despotism, and all the evils of anarchy, pressed at once on that
    miserable race. They knew nothing of government but its exactions. Desolation was in their imperial cities, and famine all along
    the banks of their broad and redundant rivers. It seemed that a few
    more years would suffice to efface all traces of the opulence and
    civilisation of an earlier age.”


  6. you dog who are you to say Hindu nationalist such language,i think dog is the national animal of your country.all the consequence after 1835 suggest that Macaulay quote war true.i proud that Hindus are nationalist not like christen who are completely racist.

  7. Hey You, How dare you to tell Hindu Nationalists as a Dog…Keep that within your Friends circle..
    I’m an INDIAN , I’m the Hindu, My Mother Land takes care of Many Religions..I Respect All the Religions, that’s My religion thought Me…
    If you’re the Philosopher with many Degrees, fold and keep it in your pocket…First Learn the way of Communication.
    Come to India and see how the people of different Religions Love to Mingle with each other..Don’t read in the News Paper nor in the Internet, you alone come and feel it..
    If Lord Macaulay’s speech made you to think False, then tell it is False with the Proof..other than this you don’t have the Rights to Tell “Piss on the Hindu Nationalist Dog”, who are you to criticize the Hindu and bring the difference between the Indian’s Mind….I can also use the vulgar statements, But it doesn’t bring the difference between you and me…Don’t pull the Religions To make your Blog Decorative and to make the people to think your Genius…Lord Macaulay Speech is true or not, we don’t know, But the Statements are True,no matter who as been told, We know about Our Country’s Golden History…If the Lord Macaulay’s Statements are true, I Respect him for his Humanity….

      • Whats this Banned Banned Banned!!!

        Any how we are all Humans, you are in different place, I’m in different Place, But we stand on one Earth.For that reason,

        Take Care..Good Luck 🙂

      • Dear Friends,
        Beatrix and Rachele….For your comment, I’m not getting angry, but got hurt.

        **Every Nation Development depends upon the Three Main Factors,that is

        If These Three are Stable, then its is Directly Proportional to Nations Development.
        (Stable means not converting Everything to One, But Organizing Many Minds to One)

        **I’m Proud to Be in My Mother Land with Many Religion’s, Many Language’s, Many Culture’s.

        In order to increase the Ranking in the HDI(Human Development Index)
        Science & Technology Development should be Increased….
        So, Many Infinite competitions Raised..
        Still Continuing with Infinite end….But at the END of the Day,
        If we don’t have the Time to hold the Relations for our Loved ones, then what’s the use of the Development.

        **Our Elders Focused on Truth Of Life…In Today’s World I call it as Humanity Development Index..They are
        >Maatru Devo Bava – (Means ->Mother Is God)
        >Pitru Devo Bava – (Father Is God)
        >Acharya Devo Bava -(Teacher is God)
        >Athtithi Devo Bava – (Guest’s are God) (You to include Here)

        Holding These and Focusing on Making Development Teaches….Not to Leave the Above Hands..Even after the Development….

        This is the 66th year of Independence, compared to the Top Nations Independence..Our’s is smaller..With this Smaller Period We have made a Development with Faster rate.

        So Dear Frnds the Problems that you have mentioned is found in some places..Not every where..
        For only this reason “The Word Hell” should not be used.

        I Love My Mother Land……Please respect the Mother Land and Neighboring Mother Lands…
        Nothing Can Be Replaced By the Mother and MotherLand…
        Both are Holding us From “Before We Born To Even After We Die”.

        I Explained above Things only to tell you,- Writing Any Comments or Pointing any problem is very easy..
        But to See the Truth behind that, is the Most Important….
        So dear friends, when u want to tell anything about the Motherland, please give an Advise…Please don’t make the comment…
        We Heart Fully Accept your Advise and Thank full to you…..

      • India_landoofRapes

        Indians are great bullshitters, Indian MNC’s are bullshitting across the world that they are next superpower and some meaningless bullshit, after recent corruption scams many investors have lost faith in indian economy,Indian work ethic combined with crooked culture creates corrupt backbiting ,worst work culture you can ever imagine.

        Indians actually believe that they are most intelligent race on earth, they even think that most internet companies were actually run by indian talent.They even believe that entire world was civilized by Hindu Dharma, Such is the level of hypocrisy and fakery that runs in indian society.

        Some Indians even believe that Europeans are actually from India…Indians are most insecure people on earth. for 1000’s of years South asian society is closed ,Most indians are proverbial frogs..But the culture and society serious fucks you, it impairs your critical thinking and destroys you individually, hypocrisy and opportunism and complete lack of social consciousness is seen everywhere

        I am not saying that indians seek destruction of other cultures intentionally, but once you live in india for 15 years, you automatically end up becoming corrupt , sly, crooked and most degenerate human, I am not sure why Spirituality seekers come to india, of course, this has been happening since ,early 1960’s hippie age.

        Trust me , if you spend more time in Indian society, you actually lose your humanity and human consciousness, you will meet most despicable humans in india, who lie while cheering and politicians who will not miss an opportunity to make money from Coffins, Read about Coffin scam,How indian politicians made money from Coffins and Latrines.


      • India_landoofRapes

        When Indian nationalists came to power, they started Kargil war but after the war many scams were unearthed

        Like Coffin scam



        the same Degenerate nationalists who send Indians to war ,will not hesitate a single second to make money from Dead Bodies and coffins

        Not just Coffins, Dead widows of Kargil war were cheated by Indian politicians


        Most widows of kargil war are working as prostitutes currently, this is what you get when you serve in Indian army and give your life for this degenerate Society

      • India_landoofRapes

        Indian society has mastered the art of presenting obvious Losers(Average indian on street) as greatest heroes(Intelligent,civilized beings)

      • lord

        What Indians ought to do is start killing Muslim Islamists in their midst

      • lord

        “When Indian nationalists came to power, they started Kargil war”

        Hmm..A Pakistani has outed himself.

        The whole world knows the Kargil crisis was started by Pakistan under Musharaff. Unless you are an Indian Muslim traitor you must be a Pakistani

        Which one are you?

      • unknown virus

        macauklay is a idiot and you and india land of rapes are most senile distilled idiots

  8. Prince Charles and Camilla is visiting India right now. I know that British royalty visiting India used to be a big deal but is no longer. I understand this and is totally to be expected. What I find strange is that the Times of India didn’t report this news at all, not even a brief mention. Although other India newspaper do report it. What is going on with Times of India? Any theory on this?

  9. lord

    The English used to do that kind of stuff in India

    • lord

      There is also another woman by the name Mortimer who write childrens book on India, although she had never set foot in India. She made up stuff like Kali worshiping … like Temple of the Doom stuff..

      The English had to rationalize their tyranny in India to their own people.. So they wrote stories about all the “good” they are doing in India

      It read like some of the Muslims and christians posters here

  10. unfortunately this all is due to impact of english rule of 400 years…look at your literature and culture…history!

    • India_landoofRapes

      This is not due to Impact of british, Indians behave in same manner towards other indians who are slightly fair in Complexion than them

      My Mother has Very fair Skin tone, not like people in West but compared to indian standards she is Fair, and She is biochemist,She quit the job after several Sexual overtures from her seniors

      The perverse feeling towards fair skin is deep seated in Indian psyche, you can see how indians behave with Bollywood actress or any Indian Models.

      In 1984 when my mother was working as Biochemistry Asst.Prof. at Central University Hyderabad, Senior Prof. Called my mother into his office and unzipped himself and said that he cannot control his urges and started masturbating before my mother—The Guy’s name is Dr.Prof. Rajendra Naik, Central University Hyderabad Suspended him but he returned back after some political clout helped to regain the same Post and court dismissed sexual harassment charges, aftermath my mother never worked and remained house wife.

      This perversion is very deep in indian psyche, everything is covered with holier than thou attitude and instantly shifting every social malice in Indian society onto British,

  11. Jebus

    India’s secular crowd has helped destroy India’s values… What a surprise.

    • India_landoofRapes

      There is no such thing as “indian values”, its all hypocrisy, even most Right wing hindutva idiots and Swamis are actually Sexual predators., most of the babas are Child molesters,Recently Asaram bapu was caught, and several others were actually hiding, Swami ramana maharshi was actually a homosexual and every one in his ashram knows this.

      Unsuspecting idiot indian masses have been fooled by fraud babas with their moral hypocrisy but we cannot blame these Fraud hindu gurus, most indians are perverse by nature, sexuality is highly repressed and there is holier than thou attitude towards sex.

      Indians love to show their holier than thou attitude by pointing towards western society and sexual freedom that west enjoys.

      Honestly speaking ,Wife sharing, infidelity is wide spread in Indian society, but all of that is covered up , at least in west people are honest about their relationships and are free to embrace their sexuality.

      In India hypocrisy and holier than thou attitude pervades across all sections of society

  12. India_landoofRapes

    Its all bullshit, Indians are great bullshitters, they can orate such bullshit values but none of such things are followed, its like an advertisement , but dont be fooled , indians will go to any lengths to please you if you have something they need

    If you have nothing to offer, they dont give a damn even if you are raped by 10 people at gun point, onlookers will see and masturbate at you..

    Indian society is solipsistic and highly opportunistic , Our society needs continuous dose of morality and hypocritic values without such input we will kill each other for money

    • allimcbiel

      And Mohammad Gazni and Ghries are the perfect moralists to teach those Hindus a lesson on morality…right Taliban Pedowan?

  13. unknown virus

    Oh you beauty!!! are you suffering from selective amnesia. Aren’t there muslim men commiting these kinds of crimes? You go around picking crimes as if they are reserved to be exclusively commited by hindu men. If you really want to highlight the crime scenario you must be neutral one more creatures like you who hate your fellow country men will be welcomed with snide remarks everywhere no matter whether you live either in europe or US

  14. hitesh.k

    Impact of MACAULAYISM on india
    Macaulayism —” This term derives from Thomas Babington Macaulay, a Law Member of the Governor General’s Council in the 1830s in the British government in India at Calcutta.”

    Thomas Macualay was instrumental in creation of new history of India that was fabricated to ensure that present and future generations of mentally colonized people would believe in the inherent inferiority of their own traditional knowledge and in the superiority of the colonizers’ ‘modern’ knowledge.Thomas Macalauy

    The term Macaulay’s Children is used to refer to people born of Indian ancestry who adopt Western culture as a lifestyle, or display attitudes influenced by colonisers. The term is usually used in a derogatory fashion, and the connotation is one of disloyalty to one’s country and one’s heritage. This frame of mind or attitude is also referred to as Macaulayism.

    The passage to which the term refers is from his Minute on Indian Education, delivered in Feb 2, 1835 by Thomas McCauley in British Parliament …

    “I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation”.

    “It is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. 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 color, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.

    Historical Background

    Earlier, the British Government of India had completed a survey of the indigenous system of education in the Presidencies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras. A debate was going on whether the indigenous system should be retained or a new system introduced. Macaulay was the chief advocate of a new system. This, he, expected, will produce a class of Indians brown of skin but English in taste and temperament. The expectation has been more than fulfilled.

    The Devaluation of the Indian System of Education

    There is a widespread impression among “English educated classes” in India that this country had no worthwhile system of education before the advent of the British. The great universities like those at Takshashilã, Nãlandã,Vikramashîla and Udantapurî had disappeared during Muslim invasions and rule. What remained, we are told, were some pãthashãlãsin which a rudimentary instruction in arithmetic, and reading and writing was imparted by semi-educated teachers, mostly to the children of the upper castes, particularly the Brahmins. But the impression is not supported by known and verifiable facts.

    Shri Dharampal who compiled Indian Science and Technology in the Eighteenth Century: Some Contemporary European Accounts in 1971 has completed a book on the state of indigenous education in India on the eve of the British conquest. Shri Dharampal has documented from old British archives, particularly those in Madras, that the indigenous system of education compared more than favourably with the system obtaining in England at about the same time. The Indian system was admittedly in a state of decay when it was surveyed by the British Collectors in Bengal, Bombay and Madras. Yet, as the data brought up by them proved conclusively, the Indian system was better than the English in terms of
    (1) the number of schools and colleges proportionately to the population, (2) the number of students attending these institutions,
    (3) the duration of time spent in school by the students,
    (4) the quality of teachers,
    (5) the diligence as well as intelligence of the students,
    (6) the financial support needed to see the students through school and college,
    (7) the high percentage of lower class (Sudra and other castes) students attending these schools as compared to the upper class (Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaisya) students, and
    (8) in terms of subjects taught.

    This indigenous system was discarded and left to die out by the British not because its educational capacity was inferior but because it was not thought fit for serving the purpose they had in mind. The purpose was, first, to introduce the same system of administration in India as was obtaining in England at that time. The English system was highly centralised, geared towards maximisation of state revenues, manned by ‘gentlemen’ who despised the ‘lower classes’ and were, therefore, ruthless in suppression of any mass discontent. Secondly, the new system of education aimed at promoting and patronising a new Indian upper class who, in turn, would hail the blessings of British Raj and cooperate in securing its stability in India. The indigenous system of education was capable neither of training such administrators nor of raising such a social elite, not at home anywhere.

    The system of education introduced by the British performed more or less as Macaulay had anticipated. Hindus like Bankim Chandra Chatterjee, Swami Vivekananda, Lokmanya Tilak, Mahatma Gandhi, Mahamanã Malaviya,Veer Savarkar, Sri M.S. Golwalker, to name only the most notable amongst those who escaped its magic spell and rediscovered their roots, were great souls, strong enough to survive the heavy dose of a deliberate denationalisation. For the rest, it has eminently succeeded in sweeping an ancient and highly cultured people off its feet. Macaulay does deserve the honor of a whole “ism” of which we have not seen the last yet.

    The Doctrine of Macaulayism

    It is not easy to define the doctrine of Macaulayism in as authentic terms as we could do in the case of Islamism and Christianism. Doctrinally, Macaulayism is quite diffused. It does not swear by a historical prophet whom it proclaims as the latest as well as the last and the best. It does not bestow a monopoly of truth and wisdom on a single book. It does not lay down a single code of conduct distilled from the doings of a prophet or the sacerdotal tradition of a church.

    Nor is Macaulayism malevolent like Islamism or mischievous like Christianism. It is rather mild and well-meaning, more like an imperceptible breeze which blows in silently, fins up the psychological atmosphere, creates a mental mood, inspires an intellectual attitude, and finally settles down as a cultural climate-pervasive, protean and ubiquitous.

    Unlike Islamism and Christianism, Macaulayism does not employ any meticulously matured methods to propagate or proliferate itself. It is not out to use a specified section of Indian society as a vehicle of its virulence. It is not a potent potion like Islamism which destroys the body of a culture in one fell sweep. It is not subtle like Christianism which subverts a society surreptitiously. But at the same time, it is a creeping toxaemia which corrodes the soul of a culture and corrupts a social system in slow stages. And its target is every section of Indian society.

    Adherent of Macaulayism

    As we survey the spread of its spell over Hindu society, particularly Hindu intelligentsia, we can spot some of its paralysing processes. The most prominent are the following five:

    A skeptical, if not negative, attitude towards Hindu spirituality, cultural creations and social institutions with solemn airs of scholarship and superior knowledge. Nothing in Hindu India, past or present, is to be approved unless recognized and recommended by an appropriate authority in the West;

    A positive, if not worshipful, attitude towards everything in Western society and culture, past as well present, in the name of progress, reason and science. Nothing from the West is to be rejected unless it has first been weighed and found wanting by a Western evaluation;

    An intellectual inclination to compare Hindu ideals and institutions from the past not with their contemporaneous ideals and institutions in the West but with what the West has achieved in its recent history-the 19th and the 20th Centuries;

    A mental mood to judge the West in terms of the ideals and utopias it proclaims from time to time, while judging the Hindus with an all too supercilious reference to what prevails in Hindu society and culture at the present time when the Hindus have hardly emerged from a long period of struggle against foreign invasions;

    A psychological propensity to scrutinise, interpret and evaluate Hindu culture, history, society and spirituality with the help of concepts and tools of analysis evolved by Western scholarship. It is never granted that the Hindus too have well-developed concepts and tools of analysis, derived from their own philosophical foundations, that it would be more profitable to use these concepts and tools of analysis for a proper understanding of the Hindu heritage, and that it is less than fair to employ alien and incompatible methods of evaluation while judging this heritage. If the Hindus use their own concepts and tools of analysis to process and weigh the Western heritage, our Macaulayists always throw up their hands and denounce the exercise as unscientific and irrelevant to the universe of discourse.

    Starting from the secular and socialist state and planned economy, traveling through a casteless society and scientific culture, and arriving at day-to-day consumption in Hindu homes, we witness the same servile scenario unfolding itself in an endless endeavor. Our parliamentary institutions, our public and private enterprises, our infrastructure of power and transport, our medicine, public health and housing, our education and entertainment, our dress, food, furniture, crockery, table manners, even the way we gesticulate, grin and smile have to be carbon copies of what they are currently doing in the West.

    Drain-pipes, bell-bottoms, long hair, drooping moustaches; girls dressed up in jeans; parents being addressed as mom and pa and mummy and daddy; demand for convent schooling in matrimonial ads: and natives speaking their mother tongues in affected accents after the English civilian who was helpless to do otherwise-these are perhaps small and insignificant details which would not have mattered if the Hindus had retained pride in the more substantial segments of their cultural heritage. But in the current context of kowtowing before the West, they are painful portents of a whole culture being forced to feel inferior and go down the drain.

    The Hindu may sometimes need to feel some pride in his ancestral heritage, particularly when he wants to overcome his sense of inferiority in the presence of visitors from the West. Macaulayism will gladly permit him that privilege, provided Kãlidãsa is admired as the Shakespeare of India and Samudraguptacertified as India’s Napoleon. The Hindu is permitted to take pride in that piece of native literature which some Western critic has lauded. Of course, the Hindu should read it in its English translation. He is also permitted to praise those specimens of Hindu architecture, sculpture, painting, music, dance and drama which some connoisseurs from the West have patronised, preferable in an exhibition or performance before a Western audience. But he is not permitted to do this praising and pride-taking in a native language nor in an English which does not have the accepted accent.

    Creation of Self-Alienated Hindus

    The Hindu who is thus addicted to Macaulayism lives in a world of his own which has hardly any contact with the traditional Hindu society. He looks forward to the day when India will become a society like societies in the West where the rate of growth, the gross national product and the standard of living are the only criteria of progress. He is tolerant towards religion to the extent that it remains a matter of private indulgence and does not interfere with the smooth unfoldment of the socio-political scene. Personally for him, religion is irrelevant, though some of its rituals and festivities can occasionally add some colour to life. For the rest, religion is so much obscurantism, primitive superstition and, in the Indian context at present, a creator of communal riots.

    It should not, therefore, be surprising if this self-forgetful, self-alienated Hindu who often suffers from an incurable anti-Hindu animus a la Nirad Chaudhry, turns his back upon Hindu society and culture and becomes indifferent to their fate. He cannot help having not much patience with the traditional Hindu who is still attached to his spiritual tradition, who flocks to hallowed places of pilgrimage, who celebrates his festivals with solemnity, who regulates his daily life with rituals and sacraments, and who honours his forefathers, particularly the old saints, sages and heroes. He also cannot help being indulgent towards those who are hostile to the traditional Hindu and who heap contempt and ridicule on him, no matter to what community or faith they belong, though he may not share their own variety of religious or ideological fanaticism.

    Indifference of The Traditional Hindu

    The traditional Hindu, on the other hand, wants to live in peace and amity with all his compatriots. He is normally very tolerant towards his Muslim and Christian countrymen, and gladly grants them the right to their own way of worship. He goes further and quite often upholds Muslim and Christian religions as good as his own. He shows all due respect to Muslim and Christian prophets, scriptures and saints. He does not try to prevent anyone from freely discussing, dissecting, even ridiculing his religion and culture. He never mobilises murderous mobs against those Hindus who do not share his convictions about his ancestral heritage. He turns a blind eye to his Gods and Goddesses being turned into cheap models in calendars and commercial advertisements. Nor does he go out converting people of other faiths to his own.Macaulay childrens

    The traditional Hindu, however, does get stirred when the Muslims and Christians cross the limits and threaten the unity and integrity of his country. He does want to retain his majority in his only homeland against Muslim and Christian attempts to reduce him to a minority by fraudulent mass conversions. He does believe that Hindu society and culture have a right to survive and put up some defence in exercise of that right. But the Hindu addict of Macaulayism stubbornly refuses to concede that right to Hindu society and culture. He cannot see the need for defence because he cannot see the danger. And he has many strings to his bow to run down the Hindu who dares defy his diktat. His attitude can by summarised as follows:

    To start with, he refuses to recognise any danger to Hindu society and culture even when irrefutable facts are placed under his nose. He accuses and denounces as alarmists, communalists, chauvinists and fascists all those who give a call for self-defence to the Hindus. Better, he explains away the aggression from other faiths in terms of the aggression which “Hindu communalism” has committed in the first instance;

    Next, he paints a pitiful picture of the aggressor as a poor, deprived and down-trodden minority whom the Hindus refuse to recognise as equal citizens, constitutionally entitled to a just share in the national cake;

    At a later stage, he assumes sanctimonious airs and assigns to the Hindus an inescapable moral responsibility to rescue their less privileged brethren from the plight into which the Hindus have pressed them. In any case, the Hindus stand to lose nothing substantial if they make some generous gestures to their younger brethren even if the latter are slightly in the wrong;

    In the next round, he harangues the Hindus that any danger to them, if really real and worth worrying about, arises not from an external aggression against them but from the injustice and oppression in their own social system which drives away its less privileged sections towards other social systems based on better premises and promises. Does not Islam promise an equality of social status because of its great ideal of the brotherhood of men? Does not Christianity present an example of dedicated social service a la Mother Teresa?

    If the Hindus are not convinced by all these arguments and become bent upon organising some sort of a self-defence, he comes out with a fool-proof formula for that eventuality as well. The Hindus are advised to put their own house in order which, in his opinion, is the best defence they can put up. They should immediately abolish the caste system, start inter-dining and inter-marrying between the upper and lower castes, particularly the Harijans, and so on and so forth. It never occurs to him that social reform is a slow process which takes time to mature and that in the meanwhile a society is entitled to self-defence in the interests of its sheer survival;

    If the Hindus still remain adamant, he tries his last and best ballistics upon them. He suddenly puts on a spiritual mask and lovingly appeals to the Hindus in the name of their long tradition of religious tolerance. How can the followers of Gautama and Gandhi descend to the same level as Islam and Christianity which have never known religious tolerance? The Hindus would cease to be Hindus if they also start behaving like followers of the Semitic faiths which have been conditioned differently due to historical circumstances of their birth. But he never dares put in one single word of advice to the followers of Islamism and Christianism to desist from always having it their own way. He knows it in his bones that such an advice will immediately bring upon his head the same abusive accusations which Islamism and Christianism hurl at the Hindus. This is the outcome which he dreads worse than death. He cannot risk his reputation of being secular and progressive which Islamism and Christianism confer upon him only so long as he defends their tirades against the Hindus.

    But the stance which suits Macaulayism best is to sit on the fences and call a plague on both houses. The search for fairness and justice is somehow always too strenuous for a follower of Macaulayism. The one thing he loathes from the bottom of his heart is taking sides in a dispute, even if he is privately convinced as to who is the aggressor and who the victim of aggression. He views the battle as a disinterested outsider and finds it somewhat entertaining. The reports and reviews which some of our eminent journalists have filed in the daily and the periodical press about happenings in Meenakshipuram and other places where Islamism is again on the prowl, leaves an unmistakable impression that these gentlemen are not members of Hindu society but visitors from some outer space on a temporary sojourn to witness a breed of lesser beings fighting about Tweedledum and Tweedledee.

    An adherent of Macaulayism can well afford to take this neutral, even hostile stance, away from and above Hindu society, its problems and its struggles, because, in the last analysis, he no more regards Hindu society as his own or as his indispensable benefactor. He has already managed to monopolise most of the political and administrative power in this country and the best jobs in business and the professions. He has secured a stranglehold on the most prestigious publicity media. The political upstarts and the neo-rich look up to him as their paragon and try to mould their sons and daughters in his image.

    But what is uppermost in his mind, if not his conscious calculation, is the plenty of patrons, protectors and pay-masters he has in the West, particularly the United States of America. The scholars and social scientists over there in the progressive West approve and applaud whenever he pontificates about India’s socio-economico-cultural malaise and prescribes the proper occidental cures. They invite him to international seminars and on well-paid lecture tours to enlighten Western audiences about the true state of things in this “unfortunate” country and the rest of the “under-developed” world. He can travel extensively in the West with all expenses paid on a lavish scale. Even in this country he alone is entitled to move and establish the right contacts in social circles frequented by the powerful and the prestigious from the West.

    And, God forbid, if the worst comes to the worst and the “fanatics like the RSS fascists” or the Muslim fundamentalists or the Communist totalitarians take over this country, he can always find a safe refuge in one Western country or the other. There are plenty of places which can use his talents to mutual profit. The salaries they pay and the expense accounts they allow are quite attractive. The level of living with all those latest gadgets is simply lovable. In any case, he has all those sons and daughters, nephews and nieces, cousins and close relatives ensconsed in all those cushy jobs over there-the UN agencies, the fabulous foundations, the business corporations, the universities and research institutions.

    So, Hindu society with all its hullabaloo of religion and culture be damned. This society, and not he, stands to lose if he is not permitted to work out his plans for progress in peace. In any case, this society cannot pay even for his shoes getting polished properly.

    The Problem of Self-Alienation-By Ram Swarup

    In this brief historical analysis of India’s periods of domination, we begin to see how it came to pass that some of the most forceful opponents of Hinduism are Indians who claim to be good Hindus.

    India has been under attack for a thousand years. The new attacks were not like the old raids India had known before. These were buttressed by an ideology of heavenly sanction, a permanent motive and system of ideas. Any economic and political gain — and it was in no way small — was merely a just reward for an activity which was essentially religious.

    After the Muslim invasions came the European era. India’s first major contact began when Vasco de Gama landed with gunboat and priests. The newcomers were not only pirates and merchants but also believing Christians. They had the pope’s mandate to convert heathens in the lands they conquered. They found that the natives had a flourishing religion of their own. They took to destroying their temples in earnest. Within decades of their occupation of small coastal parts, they had destroyed, according to their own records, 601 temples in 131 villages—all important Christian Orders taking part in this pious work. Franciscan friars destroyed 300 Hindu temples in Bardez, Jesuits 280 in Salsete. St. Francis Xavier, who participated in this meritorious work, wrote back home: “As soon as I arrived in any heathen village, when all are baptized, I order all the temples of their false gods to be destroyed and all the idols to be broken to pieces. I can give you no idea of the joy I feel in seeing this done.”

    Hindus got relief from this active religious persecution when the British came. But they too were not without a powerful missionary lobby of their own whose aims were no different from other Christian missions. Though the missions were not allowed to apply their usual muscular methods, they were free to propagate their religion. Their aim was conversion of heathens to the true faith, and to that end they began to attack Hinduism in different ways. They attacked it for having too many Gods while none of them was the right Biblical one. They attacked it for being idolatrous. They attacked all its leading ideas — karma, incarnation, moksha, compassion for all beings, etc.

    The attack on the Hindu religion was supported by attack on the Hindu people and society. Hindu rites, customs, were all evil, and their morals and manners even worse, if that were possible. With so much depravity around and with such fine and disinterested teachers at hand, they looked forward to a Christian India in a not-too-distant future. Sir W.M. Williams, a Sanskritist with great missionary sympathies, prophesied, “When the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahminism are encircled, undermined and finally stormed by the soldiers of the Cross, the victory of Christianity must be signal and complete.”

    The colonial administrator was not unsympathetic to the missionary attack. Though he discouraged its excesses, he found it useful. He knew that Hinduism was India’s definition at its deepest and also its principle of unity and regeneration and unless this principle was attacked, India could not be successfully ruled. He knew that what upheld Hinduism also upheld India and its political struggle. A people who had lost pride in themselves, who were demoralized, were welcome to him.

    Colonial scholars reinforced the missionary attack by their own from another angle. They taught that India was not one country, that it was a miscellany of people, that it had never known independence, that it had always been under the rule of foreign invaders. Their future native pupils learned their lesson well and even outdid their teachers. They were to find in these invaders the main principle of their country’s renewal and civilization. This teaching became the refrain of the TV programs of a secular india.

    The rulers had a clear motive, a clear goal. They wanted an India which had no identity, no vision of its own, no native class of people respected for their leadership. They were to be replaced as far as it lay in their power by a new class of intellectual compradores. Meanwhile, the concerted attacks succeeded. They were internalized, and we made them our own. There came a crop of “reformers” who wanted India to change to the satisfaction of its critics. Above all, there appeared a class of Hindu-hating Hindus who knew all the “bad things” about Hinduism. Earlier invaders ruled through the sword. The British ruled through Indology.

    The British took over our education and taught us to look at ourselves through their eyes. They created a class Indian in blood and color, but anti-Hindu in his intellectual and emotional orientation. This is the biggest problem rising India faces — the problem of self-alienated Hindus, of anti-Hindu Hindus.

    Marx’s Mark

    The missionary-colonial attack was reinforced by another attack — Marxism. Its source, too, was Europe and it was even more Eurocentric than regular Imperialism. Marx fully shared the contempt of British Imperialists for India. He fully subscribed to the theses of colonial scholarship that India was not a nation, that it had no history and it was meant for subjugation. He said, “Indian society has no history at all, at least no known history. What we call its history is but the history of successive intruders.” Marx also said that India neither knew freedom nor deserved it. To him the question was “not whether the English had a right to conquer India, but whether we are to prefer India conquered by the Turk, by the Persian, by the Russian, to India conquered by the Briton.” This also become the faith of his Indian pupils.

    In India, Macaulayism prepared the ground for Marxism — early Marxists were recruited from Macaulayites. Marxism in turn gave Macaulayism a radical look and made it attractive for a whole new class. While Marxists served European Imperialism, they also fell in love with all old Imperialist invaders, particularly Muslim ones. M.N. Roy found the Arab Empire a “magnificent monument to the memory of Mohammed.” While the Marxists found British Imperialism historically “progressive,” they opposed the country’s national struggle as reactionary.

    Marxism was Macaulayism at its most hostile. It blackened Indian history systematically. It gave to the Indian social and political system its own format, the one it had learned from its European teachers and the only one it knew. It saw in Indian castes — a cooperative, cultural and integrating principle — class-war and class-exploitation, the situation — somewhat relieved by intrusions of Muslims with an egalitarian outlook.

    It is widely agreed that India’s Independence struggle derives from Hindu renaissance, but it is not equally realized that it can also only be sustained by it. Hinduism is the principle of India’s self-renewal. Anything that hurts that principle hurts India, hurts its civilizational role, therefore hurts future religious humanity. India rose through Sanatana Dharma, and it is also to rise for it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s