The truth about "Lord Macaulay's Address To The British Parliament - February 2, 1835"

A forwarded mail with the title "Lord Macaulay's Address To The British Parliament - February 2, 1835" is in circulation and I received it recently. See the image below:

Being a patriot, I was hurt and angry on reading it, and decided to check it out. My conclusion: The image is a complete forgery. Macaulay was in India from 1834-38. There is no way he could have even addressed the Parliament in 1835. The forger has not read even one of Macaulay's speeches. However, there is some similarity with one quote from the "Macaulay Minute" of 1835, PROVIDED one twists that quote (as many do!) to misrepresent what Macaulay was saying. A number of people keep using that quote without actually reading the "Minute".

For those of you who would be interested in knowing the truth, please click here to read "MACAULAY'S MINUTE ON INDIAN EDUCATION". The text on top of the forgery seems to be in Tamil. The Tamilians are renowned for their love of Tamil and the 'Fight Against Hindi'. May be the forger is a Tamilian and want provocation of anti-English thoughts on the minds of the one's foolish enough to believe him?

A great master of English prose, European classics, and English history, Macaulay was an advocate of liberal attitudes in politics. He was a staunch English patriot, and thought that the Empire had a role, function, and duty to civilize the colonies, by bestowing upon them and nurturing among them the English political and judicial institutions. English was the means par excellence for this purpose, Macaulay advocated. Although he was patriotic to the core and was even prompted to be vengeful or vindictive because many Europeans were murdered in India during the "rebellion," yet, as we saw, he was not wholly convinced about the need and justification for these feelings. He appeared to have no particular admiration for anything Indian! And yet as a well-meaning intellectual, he wished that Indians should prosper and excel in such a way that one-day they might even end the rule of the Empire!

We may question the logic and the arguments of Macaulay, particularly his diatribe against Indian culture, religion, theology, arts, and sciences. He wrote these words nearly 173 years ago, and as a representative of a ruling power. Some of his words certainly hurt us even today when we read him, and if he were to write to this generation, I have no doubt that he would have been perhaps more circumspect, and would have been "restrained by the necessity of paying a decent reverence to the practices of an established religion". However, we all know that the number of Indians who wish to learn and use English has been growing steadily for the last two centuries. We all know that English has come to stay in India. The ruling Indian castes or classes have embraced English with suitable modifications as to the contents of lessons and the lexicon that are used in textbooks and taught in classes. English has become the language of higher castes and the affluent in the Indian subcontinent. The lower castes and poorer classes try to emulate the model set by their peers. The net result is that English will continue, and no central or state government will dare to abolish it from the curriculum in India. Globalisation makes English a value added language, the access to which becomes a passport for jobs around the world.

Despite his staunch patriotism and contempt-like posture towards Indian culture, languages, arts, sciences, and theology, Macaulay wanted Indians to prosper and excel themselves in all ways of life. He told the House of Commons in his speech on July 10, 1833,

We are told that the time can never come when the natives of India can be admitted to high civil military office. We are told that this is the condition on which we hold our power. We are told, that we are bound to confer on our subjects every benefit-which they are capable of enjoying?-no; --which it is in our power to confer on them? -no ; --but which we can confer on them without hazard to the perpetuity of our own domination. Against that proposition I solemnly protest as inconsistent alike with sound policy and sound morality. . . . We are free, we are civilized, to little purpose, if we grudge to any portion of the human race an equal measure of freedom and civilization. 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 men to awaken ambition and to provide it with no legitimate vent? Who will answer any of these questions in the affirmative? . . . 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. Abut 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 of our own. The sceptre may pass away from us. Unforeseen accidents may derange our most profound schemes of policy. Victory may be inconstant to our arms. . . .

Macaulay's contributions to Indian political administration and justice were manifold, but two among these stand out as his outstanding contributions that influenced the course of ideas and life in the Indian subcontinent. These were: his minute on the education that had a direct impact on the content and methodology of what was best to be taught in Indian educational institutions along with the medium through which these should be taught. The second relates to his monumental work for the development of the Indian Penal Code.

Perhaps because of the reasons mentioned in this post, most nations have embarked upon a process of textbook contextualization when it comes to teaching English. The original pieces of writing by the native speakers of English are sought to be replaced by the writings of the nationals who are masters of English prose and poetry. In their creative writing, metaphors, idioms, and set phrases from the national languages, which imply local culture and religion, are more freely used. Translations from the local tales are more frequently substituted for tales from Europe. In addition, government-inspired documents on ideology become part of the textbook. Nations (and individuals) want to appropriate English as a language minus the culture and religion it represents and communicates. And this trend has been successfully established in the last fifty years in India. Macaulay's diatribe is simply a nuisance at the moment for the ruling castes and classes, but his momentous decision to introduce English in the Indian School System is followed with a force never before seen in the Indian subcontinent for any language.