Thoughts on economics and liberty

Tag: Macaulay

Macaulay’s vision: Transitioning India from the Old World to the New World

Macaulay’s speech on Indian Government is a masterpiece, despite the benevolent paternalism that it does display at times. I’ve extracted (and reshuffled as appropriate) key parts of his speech and woven them into a (relative short) story – all the words (except the sub-headings – which are mine) used below are his. Enjoy. I look forward to reading (and commenting) more on Macaulay’s work in the coming days/months.]

The anarchy preceding British Rule in India

“In what state, then, did we find India? And what have we made India? 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. 

“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. 

“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.

Such was the state of India when the Company began to take part in the disputes of its ephemeral sovereigns. From that moment commenced a great, a stupendous process, the reconstruction of a decomposed society.

“It is incorrect to say that the Company was at first a mere trader, and has since become a sovereign. It was at first a great trader and a petty prince. The political functions at first attracted little notice, because they were merely auxiliary to the commercial functions. By degrees, however, the political functions became more and more important. The Zemindar became a great nabob, became sovereign of all India; the two hundred sepoys became two hundred thousand. This change was gradually wrought, and was not immediately comprehended. It was natural that, while the political functions of the Company were merely auxiliary to its commerce.

“It has been the fashion indeed to fix on the year 1765, the year in which the Mogul issued a commission authorising the Company to administer the revenues of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa, as the precise date of the accession of this singular body to sovereignty. [A]fter the grant, the Company was not, in form and name, an independent power. It was merely a minister of the Court of Delhi. Its coinage bore the name of Shah Alam. The inscription which, down to the time of the Marquess of Hastings, appeared on the seal of the Governor-General, declared that great functionary to be the slave of the Mogul. Even to this day we have never formally deposed the King of Delhi.

“[T]he fact is, Sir, that … he existence of such a body as this gigantic corporation [East India Company], this political monster of two natures, subject in one hemisphere, sovereign in another, had never been contemplated by the legislators or judges of former ages.

“[Today] the power of the new sovereigns [British] penetrates their [India’s] dominions more completely, and is far more implicitly obeyed, than was that of the proudest princes of the Mogul dynasty.”

The anomalous Empire

“That Empire is itself the strangest of all political anomalies. That a handful of adventurers from an island in the Atlantic should have subjugated a vast country divided from the place of their birth by half the globe; a country which at no very distant period was merely the subject of fable to the nations of Europe; a country never before violated by the most renowned of Western conquerors; a country which Trajan never entered; a country lying beyond the point where the phalanx of Alexander refused to proceed; that we should govern a territory ten thousand miles from us, a territory larger and more populous than France, Spain, Italy, and Germany put together, a territory, the present clear revenue of which exceeds the present clear revenue of any state in the world, France excepted; a territory inhabited by men differing from us in race, colour, language, manners, morals, religion; these are prodigies to which the world has seen nothing similar. Reason is confounded. The Company is an anomaly; but it is part of a system where every thing is anomaly. It is the strangest of all governments; but it is designed for the strangest of all empires.

“We come then to the great question. Is it desirable to retain the Company as an organ of government for India? 

“In India you cannot have representative institutions. Of all the innumerable speculators who have offered their suggestions on Indian politics, not a single one, as far as I know, however democratical his opinions may be, has ever maintained the possibility of giving, at the present time, such institutions to India. One gentleman, extremely well acquainted with the affairs of our Eastern Empire, a most valuable servant of the Company, and the author of a History of India, which, though certainly not free from faults, is, I think, on the whole, the greatest historical work which has appeared in our language since that of Gibbon, I mean Mr Mill, was examined on this point. That gentleman is well known to be a very bold and uncompromising politician. He has written strongly, far too strongly I think, in favour of pure democracy. He has gone so far as to maintain that no nation which has not a representative legislature, chosen by universal suffrage, enjoys security against oppression. But when he was asked before the Committee of last year, whether he thought representative government practicable in India, his answer was, "utterly out of the question." 

“This, then, is the state in which we are. We have to frame a good government for a country into which, by universal acknowledgment, we cannot introduce those institutions which all our habits, which all the reasonings of European philosophers, which all the history of our own part of the world would lead us to consider as the one great security for good government. We have to engraft on despotism those blessings which are the natural fruits of liberty. In these circumstances, Sir, it behoves us to be cautious, even to the verge of timidity. The light of political science and of history are withdrawn: we are walking in darkness: we do not distinctly see whither we are going. It is the wisdom of a man, so situated, to feel his way, and not to plant his foot till he is well assured that the ground before him is firm.”

“A representative constitution India cannot at present have. And we have therefore, I think, given her the best constitution of which she is capable.”

British rule admittedly not perfect

“Born in humble stations, accustomed to earn a slender maintenance by obscure industry, they found themselves transformed in a few months from clerks drudging over desks, or captains in marching regiments, into statesmen and generals, with armies at their command, with the revenues of kingdoms at their disposal, with power to make and depose sovereigns at their pleasure. They were what it was natural that men should be who had been raised by so rapid an ascent to so dizzy an eminence, profuse and rapacious, imperious and corrupt.

“It is true that some disgraceful intrigues, some unjust and cruel wars, some instances of odious perfidy and avarice, stain the annals of our Eastern Empire. It is true that the duties of government and legislation were long wholly neglected or carelessly performed. It is true that when the conquerors at length began to apply themselves in earnest to the discharge of their high functions, they committed the errors natural to rulers who were but imperfectly acquainted with the language and manners of their subjects. It is true that some plans, which were dictated by the purest and most benevolent feelings have not been attended by the desired success. It is true that India suffers to this day from a heavy burden of taxation and from a defective system of law. It is true, I fear, that in those states which are connected with us by subsidiary alliance, all the evils of oriental despotism have too frequently shown themselves in their most loathsome and destructive form.

“All this is true. Yet in the history and in the present state of our Indian Empire I see ample reason for exultation and for a good hope.

“I see that we have established order where we found confusion. I see that the petty dynasties which were generated by the corruption of the great Mahometan Empire, and which, a century ago, kept all India in constant agitation, have been quelled by one overwhelming power. I see that the predatory tribes, which, in the middle of the last century, passed annually over the harvests of India with the destructive rapidity of a hurricane, have quailed before the valour of a braver and sterner race, have been vanquished, scattered, hunted to their strongholds, and either extirpated by the English sword, or compelled to exchange the pursuits of rapine for those of industry.

“I look back for many years; and I see scarcely a trace of the vices which blemished the splendid fame of the first conquerors of Bengal. I see peace studiously preserved. I see faith inviolably maintained towards feeble and dependent states. I see confidence gradually infused into the minds of suspicious neighbours. I see the horrors of war mitigated by the chivalrous and Christian spirit of Europe. I see examples of moderation and clemency, such as I should seek in vain in the annals of any other victorious and dominant nation. I see captive tyrants, whose treachery and cruelty might have excused a severe retribution, living in security, comfort, and dignity, under the protection of the government which they laboured to destroy.

“I see a large body of civil and military functionaries resembling in nothing but capacity and valour those adventurers who, seventy years ago, came hither, laden with wealth and infamy, to parade before our fathers the plundered treasures of Bengal and Tanjore. I reflect with pride that to the doubtful splendour which surrounds the memory of Hastings and of Clive, we can oppose the spotless glory of Elphinstone and Munro. I contemplate with reverence and delight the honourable poverty which is the evidence of rectitude firmly maintained amidst strong temptations. I rejoice to see my countrymen, after ruling millions of subjects, after commanding victorious armies, after dictating terms of peace at the gates of hostile capitals, after administering the revenues of great provinces, after judging the causes of wealthy Zemindars, after residing at the courts of tributary Kings, return to their native land with no more than a decent competence.

I see a government anxiously bent on the public good. Even in its errors I recognise a paternal feeling towards the great people committed to its charge. I see toleration strictly maintained: yet I see bloody and degrading superstitions gradually losing their power. I see the morality, the philosophy, the taste of Europe, beginning to produce a salutary effect on the hearts and understandings of our subjects. I see the public mind of India, that public mind which we found debased and contracted by the worst forms of political and religious tyranny, expanding itself to just and noble views of the ends of government and of the social duties of man.

“I see evils: but I see the government actively employed in the work of remedying those evils. The taxation is heavy; but the work of retrenchment is unsparingly pursued. The mischiefs arising from the system of subsidiary alliance are great: but the rulers of India are fully aware of those mischiefs, and are engaged in guarding against them. Wherever they now interfere for the purpose of supporting a native government, they interfere also for the purpose of reforming it.

Do I call the government of India a perfect government? Very far from it. No nation can be perfectly well governed till it is competent to govern itself. I compare the Indian government with other governments of the same class, with despotisms, with military despotisms, with foreign military despotisms; and I find none that approaches it in excellence. I compare it with the government of the Roman provinces, with the government of the Spanish colonies; and I am proud of my country and my age. 

Introducing a competition based examination to civil services

One word as to the new arrangement which we propose. It is intended to introduce the principle of competition in the disposal of writerships; and from this change I cannot but anticipate the happiest results. 

That the average of intelligence and virtue is very high in this country is matter for honest exultation. But it is no reason for employing average men where you can obtain superior men. Consider too, Sir, how rapidly the public mind of India is advancing, how much attention is already paid by the higher classes of the natives to those intellectual pursuits on the cultivation of which the superiority of the European race to the rest of mankind principally depends. Surely, in such circumstances, from motives of selfish policy, if from no higher motive, we ought to fill the magistracies of our Eastern Empire with men who may do honour to their country, with men who may represent the best part of the English nation. 

It is proposed that for every vacancy in the civil service four candidates shall be named, and the best candidate selected by examination. 

Law reforms

“Having given to the Government supreme legislative power, we next propose to give to it for a time the assistance of a commission for the purpose of digesting and reforming the laws of India, so that those laws may, as soon as possible, be formed into a Code. Gentleman of whom I wish to speak with the highest respect have expressed a doubt whether India be at present in a fit state to receive a benefit which is not yet enjoyed by this free and highly civilised country. Sir, I can allow to this argument very little weight beyond that which it derives from the personal authority of those who use it. For, in the first place, our freedom and our high civilisation make this improvement, desirable as it must always be, less indispensably necessary to us than to our Indian subjects; and in the next place, our freedom and civilisation, I fear, make it far more difficult for us to obtain this benefit for ourselves than to bestow it on them.

I believe that no country ever stood so much in need of a code of laws as India; and I believe also that there never was a country in which the want might so easily be supplied. I said that there were many points of analogy between the state of that country after the fall of the Mogul power, and the state of Europe after the fall of the Roman empire. In one respect the analogy is very striking. As there were in Europe then, so there are in India now, several systems of law widely differing from each other, but coexisting and coequal. The indigenous population has its own laws. Each of the successive races of conquerors has brought with it its own peculiar jurisprudence. We have now in our Eastern empire Hindoo law, Mahometan law, Parsee law, English law, perpetually mingling with each other and disturbing each other, varying with the person, varying with the place. 

If a point of Hindoo law arises, the Judge calls on the Pundit for an opinion. If a point of Mahometan law arises, the Judge applies to the Cauzee. Sir Francis Macnaghten tells us, that it is a delusion to fancy that there is any known and fixed law under which the Hindoo people live; that texts may be produced on any side of any question; that expositors equal in authority perpetually contradict each other: that the obsolete law is perpetually confounded with the law actually in force; and that the first lesson to be impressed on a functionary who has to administer Hindoo law is that it is vain to think of extracting certainty from the books of the jurist. 

The consequence is that in practice the decisions of the tribunals are altogether arbitrary. What is administered is not law, but a kind of rude and capricious equity. I asked a most distinguished civil servant of the Company, with reference to the clause in this Bill on the subject of slavery, whether at present, if a dancing girl ran away from her master, the judge would force her to go back. "Some judges," he said, "send a girl back. Others set her at liberty. The whole is a mere matter of chance. Everything depends on the temper of the individual judge."

Strong advocacy for introducing Indians to high office

“We are told that the time can never come when the natives of India can be admitted to high civil and military office. We are told that this is the condition on which we hold our power. Against that proposition I solemnly protest as inconsistent alike with sound policy and sound morality.

“I am far, very far, from wishing to proceed hastily in this most delicate matter. I feel that, for the good of India itself, the admission of natives to high office must be effected by slow degrees. But that, when the fulness of time is come, when the interest of India requires the change, we ought to refuse to make that change lest we should endanger our own power, this is a doctrine of which I cannot think without indignation. 

A hope that India will be truly free one day

“It is scarcely possible to calculate the benefits which we might derive from the diffusion of European civilisation among the vast population of the East. It would be, on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the people of India were well governed and independent of us, than ill governed and subject to us; that they were ruled by their own kings, but wearing our broadcloth, and working with our cutlery, than that they were performing their salams to English collectors and English magistrates, but were too ignorant to value, or too poor to buy, English manufactures. To trade with civilised men is infinitely more profitable than to govern savages. That would, indeed, be a doting wisdom, which, in order that India might remain a dependency, would make it an useless and costly dependency, which would keep a hundred millions of men from being our customers in order that they might continue to be our slaves.

“We shall never consent to administer the pousta to a whole community, to stupefy and paralyse a great people whom God has committed to our charge, for the wretched purpose of rendering them more amenable to our control. What is power worth if it is founded on vice, on ignorance, and on misery; if we can hold it only by violating the most sacred duties which as governors we owe to the governed, and which, as a people blessed with far more than an ordinary measure of political liberty and of intellectual light, we owe to a race debased by three thousand years of despotism and priestcraft? We are free, we are civilised, to little purpose, if we grudge to any portion of the human race an equal measure of freedom and civilisation.

“Are we to keep the people of India ignorant in order that we may keep them submissive? Or do we think that we can give them knowledge without awakening ambition? Or do we mean to awaken ambition and to provide it with no legitimate vent? Who will answer any of these questions in the affirmative? Yet one of them must be answered in the affirmative, by every person who maintains that we ought permanently to exclude the natives from high office. I have no fears. The path of duty is plain before us: and it is also the path of wisdom, of national prosperity, of national honour.

“It may be that the public mind of India may expand under our system till it has outgrown that system; that by good government we may educate our subjects into a capacity for better government; that, having become instructed in European knowledge, they may, in some future age, demand European institutions. Whether such a day will ever come I know not. But never will I attempt to avert or to retard it. Whenever it comes, it will be the proudest day in English history. To have found a great people sunk in the lowest depths of slavery and superstition, to have so ruled them as to have made them desirous and capable of all the privileges of citizens, would indeed be a title to glory all our own. 

“The sceptre may pass away from us. But there are triumphs which are followed by no reverseThere is an empire exempt from all natural causes of decay. Those triumphs are the pacific triumphs of reason over barbarism; that empire is the imperishable empire of our arts and our morals, our literature and our laws.

Continue Reading

A misunderstood liberal: Thomas B. Macaulay #3

"It would be, on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the people of India were well governed and independent of us, than ill governed and subject to us; that they were ruled by their own kings, but wearing our broadcloth, and working with our cutlery, than that they were performing their salams to English collectors and English magistrates, but were too ignorant to value, or too poor to buy, English manufactures. To trade with civilised men is infinitely more profitable than to govern savages." (Macaulay's speech entitled, "Government of India", delivered in the House of Commons on 10 July 1833).

"We are free, we are civilised, to little purpose, if we grudge to any portion of the human race an equal measure of freedom and civilisation." (ibid)

In 1833 this man, so vilified and reviled today in India (particularly by those who NEVER CARE TO VERIFY THEIR VIEWS), was talking about full independence of India at a time when British rule had barely begun, in parts of India. There were not many takers in India for such thoughts. India was then a "country" whose petty kings sought favours with the British, seeking advantage over other petty kings. A divided house, India actively sought out British expertise (and, of course, the British happily obliged – for potential profit). But do read this Macaulay's speech (on India). Very enlightening in many ways.

It is crucial that Macaulay be contextualised for his times. At a time when mercantalism was still rife, when socialism (Marxism) was on the ascendent, when USA still had slavery, when women were treated as chattel even in England, when India was considered by many in the West to have barely anything of value to contribute at the intellectual level, Macaulay was a leader in free thought and freedom, more generally. Despite that much if not most of what he wrote and said stacks up to the rigours of time. 

An opponent of colonialism

He consistently opposed colonies and demanded freedom for all. Thus, in January 1925 he wrote an article, "The West Indies", attacking slavery and ridiculing the view that a colony could be a source of wealth, since they are costly to administer. (paraphrase of Jim Powell, cited above, p.263).

A VIGOROUS opponent of racism

In his 1827 essay, "Social and Industrial Capacities of Negroes" he "attacked one Major Thomas Moody who had issued a British Colonial Office report claiming that blacks were inferior to whites. Macaulay explained that economics, not genetics, accounted for the apparent laziness of blacks, and he denounced the Major's view that compulsion was needed to get the work done" (ibid, p.263).

A brilliant economic historian

While Karl Marx FALSELY claimed that the standard of living in England were declining with increased freedom, he repeatedly and emphatically proved that greater freedom leads fastest to prosperity. "We see in almost every part of the annals of mankind how the industry of individuals, struggling up against wars, taxes, famines, conflagrations, mischievous prohibitions, and more mischievous protections, creates faster than any government can squander… We see the wealth of nations increasing, … in spite of the grossest corruption and the wildest profusion on the part of rulers." 

A brilliant orator

"[A]lmost from his first speech in the House, something resembling a rush from the smoking rooms to the benches took place whenever it was whispered that Mr. Macaulay was on his legs". (Richmond Beatty cited in Jim Powell, Triumph of Liberty, p.262)

A brilliant writer

People like Lord Acton and Winston Churchill, among many others, raved about his literary skills. Lord Acton considered him "very nearly the greatest of English writers"

I downloaded the first the first volume (57MB) of The Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay (1876), by George Otto Trevelyan. Among the few letters I had time to scan through today, I found a few written when Macaulay was 13 years old. These contained sentiments of exceptional quality that bely his age – I would be challenged to write with the fluidity with which he wrote at age 13! Something like a Rabindranath Tagore with his exceptional mastery of the language at a very young age. Macaulay was a cut well above the ordinary.  (By the way, this volume contains the extracts from the ORIGINAL Minute on education, once again confirming once again that the "quotation" from Macaulay that is circulating on the internet in India and is being used to vilify him is totally false). 

A RELENTLESS advocate of freedom

A Whig, he had a deep love of liberty, promoting things which were often quite radical for his times. Even J.S. Mill did not think that all people are fit for liberty but, like Paine, Macaulay insisted they were (although he didn't think democracy was a great thing – which, by the way, was a view often held by many classical liberals till relatively recently – not even Hayek, though, agrees the currently designed democracies work well). In many ways Macaulay preceded J.S. Mill by many years on the conceptions of freedom of the press and freedom for women

He fight relentlessly against big government, calling it "the all-devouring state". It is almost as if Bastiat comes through in some of his writings, so vigorously he opposes controls on the people. 

I'll discuss his contributions to India in a separate blog post.

A few quotations 

I've mostly picked up these from the internet, so not well cited, but they match his character, so these are genuine:

  • Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. (from On Milton, 1825)
  • The maxim, that governments ought to train the people in the way in which they should go, sounds well. But is there any reason for believing that a government is more likely to lead the people in the right way than the people to fall into the right way of themselves?
  • Men are never so likely to settle a question rightly as when they discuss it freely.
  • And to say that society ought to be governed by the opinion of the wisest and best, though true, is useless. Whose opinion is to decide who are the wisest and best?
  • As freedom is the only safeguard of governments, so are order and moderation generally necessary to preserve freedom.
  • Nothing is so galling to a people not broken in from birth as a paternal, or, in other words, a meddling government, a government which tells them what to read, and say, and eat, and drink and wear.
  • The great cause of revolutions is this, that while nations move onward, constitutions stand still. (Speech on Parliamentary Reform, 1831)
  • Reform, that we may preserve. (Debate on the First Reform Bill, March 2, 1831)
  • Thus, then, stands the case. It is good, that authors should be remunerated; and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is an evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil; but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good. (Speech on the Copyright Bill, delivered February 5, 1841).
  • The highest proof of virtue is to possess boundless power without abusing it.
  • Free trade, one of the greatest blessings which a government can confer on a people, is in almost every country unpopular.
  • Nothing is so galling to a people not broken in from the birth as a paternal, or, in other words, a meddling government, a government which tells them what to read, and say, and eat, and drink and wear.
  • We know no spectacle so ridiculous as the British public in one of its periodical fits of morality.
  • "To punish public outrages on morals and religion is unquestionably within the competence of rulers. But when a government, not content with requiring decency, requires sanctity, it oversteps the bounds which mark its proper functions. And it may be laid down as a universal rule that a government which attempts more than it ought will perform less."

More later!

Continue Reading

A misunderstood liberal: Thomas B. Macaulay #2

Always an optimistic futurist, Macaulay worked towards the distant future when others of his generation still worked for today.

"I have nad the year 2000", he writes, "and even the year 3000, often in my mind" (cited in Andrew Browning, "Lord Macaulay, 1800-59", The Historical Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1959), p.149).

He was also acutely aware that a varieties of criticisms might be levelled against him (although in all fairness he could never have imagined that people would cook up passages claiming them to be his, and vilify them for what he NEVER SAID!). 

"It will be no gross injustice to our grandchildren to talk of us with contempt because they have surpassed us. . . As we have our descendants to judge us, so ought we to judge our fathers. In order to form a correct estimate of their merits, we ought to place ourselves in their situation, to put out of our minds, for a time, all that knowledge which they, how ever eager in the pursuit of truth, could not have, and which we, however negligent we may have been, could not help having. …

"But it is too much that the benefactors of man kind, after having been reviled by the dunces of their own generation for going too far, should be reviled by the dunces of their own generation for going too far, should be reviled by the dunces of the next generation for not going far enough." (Macaulay: Critical and Historical Essays, III, p. 302, cited in William S. Knickerbocker "Suet with No Plums: Restoring Thomas Babington Macaulay",  The Sewanee Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr. – Jun., 1939), pp. 242-252)


"[i]t is doubtful whether any historical work of our time has had a circulation or direct influence comparable with, say, Macaulay's History of England." 


"Throughout his life, Macaulay expressed a sincere, exuberant, unwavering love for liberty. He called for the abolition of slavery, advocated repeal of laws against Jews, defended freedom of the press, spoke for free trade and the free movement of people, celebrated the achievements of free markets, and rejected government excuses for suspending civil liberties… Macaulay believed that women should be able to have property in their own name, and he insisted liberty is impossible without secure private property." (The Triumph of Liberty, p.261)


"There is only one cure for the evils which newly acquired freedom produces; and that cure is freedom."

This is just an appetiser. I've downloaded a number of research articles (published in reputed journals) about Macaulay and his work, and over the coming days I'll provide more information on Macaulay.

And when I can finally verify and validate the comment attributed to him in one of his letters to his father, I'll investigate and assess what that means.  

At all times, please feel free to send me ANY material you may have on Macaulay.  In particular could anyone show me the original source where that alleged quote from one of his letters is published.

A compendium of some of his writings 

The Liberty Fund has digitised and published many of his works:

Other collections:,%20Thomas%20Babington%20Macaulay,%20Baron,%201800-1859

Continue Reading

A misunderstood liberal: Thomas B. Macaulay #1

I've been having a debate with an FTI member on Facebook regarding Macaulay. This debate can't be resolved in one blog post so I'll begin with a part of it first.

I'm posting below an image that has been widely circulated within India, and has been used to show Macaulay in particularly bad light. It says:

"I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a begger, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would ever counquer 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 loose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.” – see image below.

I received this first in December 2006, conducted some research and concluded that this is false. So before I revert to the main debate and assess Macaulay in a wholistic manner, let me first dispose off this image and quote (above). This material is patently false

Macaulay's 1835 minute is found at:

or at:

or at:

or at:'s%20Minutes%20on%20Education.doc

or at:

I invite anyone to show me this language in the ORIGINAL minute. [Addendum. I just discovered that Shantanu Bhagwat, another FTI member, had done similar research in June 2007 – before FTI was launched – with very similar findings: Also here: See also: Or this one: or this:

Also see the bottom of this Wikiquote page – it explains the potential origin of this false quotation.

I trust this closes the needless vilification of Macaulay.]

What does the minute actually say?

My remarks below are derived from a reading of the minute. 

Macaulay was perceptive of Indian skills and capabilities and market needs, and argued in favour of what Indians demanded, namely more of English and less of Sanskrit. He did not force English down our throats. Indians were paying serious money to be taught English and that was the reason he felt Indians needed to be taught more English. Those who were taught Sanskrit came to the government begging for jobs – they were entirely useless for any practical purpose, even then.

In 1835 he discussed the Charter of 1813 which laid aside "A sum … apart 'for the revival and promotion of literature, and the encouragement of the learned natives of India, and for the introduction and promotion of a knowledge of the sciences among the inhabitants of the British territories.'" – a subsidy for Sanskirt and Arabic. The 'ghastly' East India company was subsidising Indian languages even in its early days, once the corrupt times of Robert Clive were over.

He argued cogently, and in my view successfully, that "the natives are desirous to be taught English, and are not desirous to be taught Sanscrit or Arabic". He also extolled the capabilities of Indians to pick up English very well: "it is unusual to find, even in the literary circles of the Continent, any foreigner who can express himself in English with so much facility and correctness as we find in many Hindoos." He proved that England needed to increase education in English and stop subsidising Sanskrit and Arabic.

Under no circumstance did he allege anywhere that he wanted to break the backbone of India. That is a very mischievous piece of false propaganda indeed. 

Other issue about Macaulay

There is one other issue about Macaulay that I've been invited to address:

Lord Macaulay apparently wrote this in a letter to his father, Oct 12 1836: "Our English schools are flourishing wonderfully. We find itdifficult,–indeed, in some places impossible,–to provide instruction for all who want it. At the single town of Hoogly 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 remains sincerely attached to his religion Some continue to profess it as matter of policy; but many profess themselves pure Deists, and some embrace Christianity 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. Andthis will be effected without any efforts to proselytise; without the smallest interference with religious liberty; merely by thenatural operation of knowledge and reflection. I heartily rejoice in the prospect." 

I'll deal with this and indeed, the entire Macaulay contributions, in a separate blog post. The first thing I've got to do is to check the authenticity of this extract.


I've now uploaded the scanned extract from the original minute (published in 1876 by Macaulay's nephew), here (2.2MB).

Koenraaad Elst on Macaulay



See my FB post here.

Continue Reading
Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial