Thomas Babington Macaulay
If we cannot erase the impact of Thomas Babington Macaulay’s Minute of 1835, 190 years after what he wrote, then 1,900 years later, too, we will continue to blame just one individual British official for the mental slavery of Indians. Interestingly, we are debating the issue 78 years after Independence, when nobody had stopped us from cancelling out his consequences. This does not mean that I am condoning him. Instead, it is high time to introspect on why we have not succeeded in coming out of this mindset.
What is often overlooked is the reality that Macaulay was just a foot soldier of European imperialism, whose origin can be traced back a couple of centuries before his birth. Western civilisation actually started gaining ground with the arrival of the Portuguese in the Indian sub-continent in the 16th century. The Catholic missionaries from the Iberian Peninsula of Europe were more aggressive proselytisers than the British. The notorious Goa Inquisition between 1560 and 1812, during which the local people were forcibly converted to Christianity and scriptures related to Hinduism were burnt, is its best example. The only difference was that the Portuguese could not militarily succeed in India and concentrated their energy in South America, Africa and elsewhere. In contrast, the British had by 1835 succeeded in becoming the virtual masters of India. The unsuccessful revolt of 1857 only drove the last nail in the coffin of the lifeless Mughal Empire, which was confined to Delhi.
To be fair to Macaulay, history stands as witness to the fact that the victorious powers usually boast of their superior civilisation as well as military and intellectual strength. In one way or another, they gradually thrust their own language, culture and even religious ideology. So, if Macaulay imposed English-medium education in India, he did not do something that had never happened in the past. Or sometimes the losers themselves adopt the faith, lifestyle, food, drinking and dressing habits of their lords.
Curiously, there were also instances of several Europeans converting to Islam, and many others even embraced the Hindu way of life. Sergeant Major Gordon was among the various Englishmen and other Europeans who converted to Islam and even died while fighting against the British in Delhi in 1857. His Muslim name was Abdullah Beg.
While arguing against any rival viewpoint, one must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. No doubt, Western civilisation wrought havoc in the “Third World,” yet some positive aspects cannot be ignored just for the sake of rhetoric. A better ideology or way of life can certainly counter capitalist Western hegemony. But, if one has nothing to offer, one only blames any Tom, Dick and Harry for the present mental enslavement.
It is an undeniable fact that we have beaten the Britons back into their small island, not too far away from the North Pole. The United Kingdom is just a second-rate power basking in its past glory. Today, we are confronting not the remnants of the British Empire, but the massive White Supremist onslaught.
True, Britain was one of its significant contributors, but its leadership has now shifted further west of the United States of America. So, unlike the general perception, sometimes exaggerated by politicians for their own ulterior motives, the truth is that the challenge we are facing today is not just the creation of a single country or a particular person.
How wonderful is the idea to debate such a fantastic topic when we are unable to provide fresh air and pure drinking water to our citizens in the national capital, Delhi? If that was not enough, why did we not discuss Vande Mataram in Parliament and put all the blame on Indian ‘Macaulay’ Jawaharlal Nehru? Surprisingly, we have been indulging in all sorts of rabble-rousing oratory when the entire aviation industry had been virtually grounded for about a fortnight by the largest flying company, that too at the height of Russian President Vladimir Putin and footballing legend Lionel Messi’s visit.
What will one say about the US-born Bobby Jindal, the first Indian-American to become the Governor of any state in the US? Hailing from a well-educated Marwari-Bania family from Punjab and raised in a conservative Hindu environment, he converted to Catholicism during his teenage years. He fully exploited this conversion to Christianity to later become the Governor of Louisiana (2008-16).
As he was not born in India, and, apparently, there was no scope for him to be influenced by the English-medium education introduced by Macaulay in 1835. His parents migrated to the US simply because it became a global power and a leading light of Western civilisation. It was the good or even bad qualities of the West that shaped the personality of Jindal — and many others like him.
Come to the Eastern part of the world, which did not come under European colonialism in the way Africa and India did. Instead, Japan emerged as an imperialist power and captured a large part of China, Russia and Korea. Yet Japan, unlike its European counterparts, could not thrust its language on the countries it subjugated.
This was simply because the Western powers skilfully used soft power and did not rely on the hard power of better arms and ammunition. The European colonists had many Macaulays all over the world to do the job.
It is a failure on the part of “Third World” countries, including India, that needs to be discussed. We must accept that, unlike Japan, the Western nations not only defeated us militarily, but also marketed their ideas, values and products in such a way that they won many customers from among us. Without committed brown-skinned friends, it could never have been possible for a few thousand Englishmen and women to rule such a vast sub-continent between 1757 and 1947. Before hurling abuses at Macaulay and his ban, it would be appropriate to indulge in self-examination.
Perhaps we are not doing so.
Take the case of Sati. After one such incident in the recent past, a prominent leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) held the Muslim rule responsible for it, even though historically it is wrong. At least two Mughal emperors, Akbar and Aurangzeb, and before them Mohammad bin Tughlaq, banned its practice. Raja Ram Mohan Roy launched a campaign against this barbarity, prompting the British to ban it again in 1829. And, if two centuries later we still have some instances of Sati, we cannot wash our hands of it by falsely stating that seven or eight centuries back someone from a different faith thrust this evil upon us. If that is so, why is Sati still glorified and temples built in its name?
Why is it that several wives and concubines of Maharaja Ranjit Singh offered themselves for Sati after his death in 1839, that is, within a decade of its ban? There were no Muslim rulers around.
One should concede one’s failure instead of hiding behind any Macaulay.
This post was last modified on December 20, 2025 8:32 pm